Weaver Park and East Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study … · 2019-10-24 · WEAVER...

CONNECTIVITY STUDY

Kickapoo Rail Trail

Weaver Park& East Urbana

Draft Plan | June 18, 2018

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY

This report was prepared with funding from the Urbana Park District, Champaign County Forest Preserve District, and the City of Urbana by

staff from the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission.

URBANA PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMichael Walker, President Bob Stewart, Vice President Nancy Delcomyn, Commissioner

Meredith Blumthal, Commissioner LaShaunda Cunningham, Commissioner

CHAMPAIGN COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT BOARDAndrew Kerins, President Sarah Livesay, Vice President Bobbie Herakovich, Secretary

Bill Goodman, Assistant Treasurer/Secretary Scott Hays, Treasurer

URBANA CITY COUNCILDiane Wolfe Marlin, Mayor Maryalice Wu, Ward 1 Eric Jakobsson, Ward 2 Aaron Ammons, Ward 3

Bill Brown, Ward 4 Dennis P. Roberts, Ward 5 H. Dean Hazen, Ward 6 Jared T. Miller, Ward 7

Connectivity StudyKICKAPOO RAIL TRAILWeaver Park & East Urbana

STEERING COMMITTEE

Urbana Park DistrictTim Bartlett, Executive Director Derek Liebert, Superintendent of Planning & Operations Kara Dudek, Planner Andy Rousseau, Project Manager

Champaign County Forest Preserve DistrictMary Ellen Wuellner, Executive Director Dan Olson, Executive Director (former) Jon Hasselbring, Planner

City of UrbanaBill Gray, Public Works Director Craig Shonkwiler, Assistant City Engineer Lorrie Pearson, Planning Manager & Zoning Administrator

Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (CUMTD)Evan Alvarez, Planner

Champaign County Bikes (CCB) Jeff Yockey, Board Member

STAFF

Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC)Rita Morocoima-Black, Planning & Community Development (PCD) Director

Gabriel Lewis, AICP, Transportation Planner

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1

Introduction 1

Scope 1

Study Area 1

Goals 3

Study Benefits 3

Property Ownership 3

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 4

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 5Street Width 5

Through Lanes 7

Posted Speed Limit 9

Road Edge Marking Type 11

Pedestrian Counts 13

Bike Counts 15

Pedestrian Crashes 17

Bike Crashes 19

3. NETWORK ANALYSIS 21Study Target Audience 21

Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) 22

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) 25

Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) 27

4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 29Public Workshop #1 30

Public Workshop #2 33

5. FACILITY TYPES 35Off-Street Facilities 35

On-Street Facilities 38

6. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 40Land Access 40

Sidepath Suitability 40

Crosswalk Analysis 40

Alternative #1: Main Street Bike Lanes Extension 42

Alternative #2: Main Street Sidepath 44

Alternative #3: Smith Road via Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) 46

Alternative #4: Bakers Lane via NSRR 49

Alternative #5: Pfeffer Road extended (UCSD driveway) to Main Street 53

Alternative #6: Industrial Circle extended 56

Alternative #7: Pfeffer Road & Washington Street 58

Alternative #8: Tatman Court extended via High Cross Road 61

Alternative #9: Art Bartell Road extended via NSRR 64

7. CONCLUSION 69Selected Comparisons 67

Recent Improvements 69

Next Steps 69

APPENDIX A 70Public Workshop #1 Results Report 70

APPENDIX B 71Public Workshop #2 Results Report 71

This page was purposefully left blank.

1

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY | Project Overview

1INTRODUCTIONFor decades, local agencies have worked to connect the collegiate community of Urbana-Champaign to the rich natural resource of Kickapoo State Park in Vermilion County, the closest state park to Champaign County. In order to create this connection, the former CSX (Conrail prior to CSX) railroad property has been acquired by the Champaign County Forest Preserve District (CCFPD) and the Vermilion County Conservation District (VCCD) from east of Smith Road in Urbana to Kickapoo State Park to build a rail-to-trail. A “rail-to-trail” is a shared-use path, either paved or unpaved, built within the right-of-way of a former railroad.1

Currently, the Kickapoo Rail Trail (KRT) is a 24.5 mile greenway that follows the former CSX railroad from East Urbana to Kickapoo State Park outside of Danville. It passes through the communities of Mayview, St. Joseph, Ogden, Fithian, and Oakwood (http://www.ccfpd.org/forest-preserve/kickapoo-rail-trail).

The first phase of paved trail on the KRT, between Main Street in Urbana and Main Street in St. Joseph, opened on August 25, 2017. CCFPD and VCCD plan to extend the trail along the rest of the greenway in the coming years. To increase regional connectivity to the KRT, the Cities of Urbana and Champaign, the Urbana and Champaign Park Districts, and other agencies are interested in extending the KRT further west into Urbana-Champaign along the existing rail corridor via existing and/or proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

1 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Page 1-3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

SCOPEThe Urbana Park District, Champaign County Forest Preserve District, and City of Urbana contracted with the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to evaluate the feasibility of providing a bicycle and pedestrian facility that connects the Kickapoo Rail Trail (KRT) at the University Avenue/Main Street Spur to Weaver Park on Main Street in Urbana. These agencies, plus the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (CUMTD) and Champaign County Bikes (CCB) formed a Steering Committee that developed and assessed the feasibility of various alternatives (see Chapter 6 “Alternatives Analysis”) that will satisify the stated purpose of the bicycle and pedestrian facility described below.

STUDY AREAFigure 1-1 shows the study area. It is bounded by University Avenue (US 150), the Kinch Street corridor, Washington Street, High Cross Road (IL 130), Tatman Drive, and the east boundary of the Walmart property.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

http://www.ccfpd.org/forest-preserve/kickapoo-rail-trail

http://www.ccfpd.org/forest-preserve/kickapoo-rail-trail

2


FIGURE 1-1 Study Area Map

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois St

N B

erin

ger C

ir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd

I74 W T IL 130 S Ramp S

Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

E Delaware Ave

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail

Brookens Center Sports Complex

Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

LegendBike Lanes

Shared-Use Path (Trail)

Sharrows

Sidewalks

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Weaver Park & East Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study Area Map

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

3


GOALSFollowing are the principal goals of this study:

PROPERTY OWNERSHIPCCFPD owns the KRT from the Scottswood Drive corridor eastbound to the Champaign/Vermilion County line. In Vermilion County, VCCD owns the KRT corridor to Kickapoo State Park. West of the Scottswood Drive corridor, Norfolk Southern Railroad still owns the land.

FIGURE 1-2 KRT section in Champaign County

1. Connect the KRT to Weaver Park. Provide a safe, convenient, and functional transportation link for bicyclists and pedestrians who seek to access and utilize the KRT from Weaver Park where existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are available to the location where the KRT starts/ends at the University Avenue/Main Street Spur intersection.

2. Develop a primary trailhead at Weaver Park. In addition to its proximity to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Weaver Park is one of Urbana Park District’s signature parks with sufficient space for the development of features like vehicle parking and restrooms, thus making it a desirable place for a KRT primary trailhead and a focal destination for this study.

3. Improve East Urbana access. Improve bicycle and pedestrian access throughout East Urbana where it currently does not exist.

STUDY BENEFITSFollowing are benefits that can be realized from this study, extending the KRT westward, and creating a trailhead at Weaver Park:

1. Access to health and wellness opportunities2. Active transportation opportunities3. Community beautification4. Economic benefits5. Facilitate access from the KRT to Downtown Urbana6. Improve local bicycle and pedestrian connections to the

KRT7. Improvement and advancement of Weaver Park as a

community trailhead8. Quality of Life improvement9. Safe Routes to Schools (Dr. Williams Elementary School,

Urbana Early Childhood School)10. Study area is primed for grant applications

4


BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIESFigure 1-1 shows that bike lanes exist on Main Street in Downtown Urbana eastward to Scottswood Drive, which turn to sharrows for 0.05 miles. The City of Urbana extended the sharrows to the KRT terminus near University Avenue in Fall 2017 after the KRT opened. A sidepath exists on the south side of Main Street, along the northern edge of Weaver Park. No sidewalks exist on Main Street east of Dodson Drive.

When the store was built in 2006, a shared-use path was built on the north side of the Walmart property, directly south of the KRT. Bike lanes also exist on sections of Washington Street west of Smith Road and between Pfeffer and High Cross Roads, with a gap in facilities between Smith and Pfeffer Roads.

Several other streets immediately west and south of the study area have bike lanes and sidepaths that connect to many areas in Urbana, including Lierman Avenue, Kinch Street, Florida Avenue, and Philo Road.

FIGURE 1-3 Bike lane on Main Street

5

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY | Existing Conditions

2

Existing features of selected major streets in the study area were measured to gather information for analysis of the alternatives.

STREET WIDTHThe purpose of measuring street width is to analyze how long trail users will be exposed to vehicles when crossing a road, as well as to evaluate the potential of a road to be restriped to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities for KRT users.

At over 75 feet wide, High Cross Road (Illinois Route 130) is the widest road in the study area. However, upon the KRT opening in Summer 2017, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) added a 15 second pedestrian/bicycle only crossing phase at the intersection of High Cross Road and University Avenue to help trail users safely cross this wide road.

The next widest road is Main Street between Dodson Drive and Lierman Avenue, which varies between 50-75 feet wide. However, this section of Main Street was given a road diet by the City of Urbana in 2013 and now has two travel lanes, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. In 2017, an all-way stop was also added at the intersection of Main Street and Smith Road. Washington Street between High Cross and Pfeffer Roads also varies in width up to 75 feet, but was reconstructed in 2015 to include bike lanes.

Main Street between Dodson Drive and Dewey Street, Industrial Circle, Pfeffer Road, Smith Road just north of Main Street, Tatman Court/Drive, University Avenue, and Washington Street west of Pfeffer Road are all between 25 and 50 feet wide.

Main Street narrows moving to the east, making the narrowest section east of Dewey Street. This includes the main alignment to Pfeffer Road, and the spur to University Avenue and the KRT. The minimum recommended width to install bike lanes on a two-lane road is 30 feet. At widths between 20-25 feet, there is not sufficient space to install bike lanes on this section of Main Street.

FIGURE 2-1 Bicyclists crossing the intersection of High Cross Road and University Avenue

EXISTING CONDITIONS

6


FIGURE 2-2 Total Street Width

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

Butzow Dr

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

dS L

ierm

an A

ve

Dod

son

Dr

Abb

ey R

d

Kin

ch S

t

Pfe

ffer R

dE Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

dMcGee Rd

S S

mith

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Phi

lo R

d

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Dod

son

Dr E

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Country Squire Dr

Aus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

Fairlawn Dr

E Illinois St

N Beringer Cir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Rutherford Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Abe

rcor

n S

t

Ivanhoe Way

Barr Ave

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Slayback Rd

E California AveM

ontg

omer

y S

t

Clarion Rd

Beacon Hill Cir

Sun

rise

Dr

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Greenridge D

r

Wilson Rd

Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Pennsylvania Ave

E Nevada St

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr


Shemaug

er Trl

E Vermont Ave

Elizabeth St

E Green St

E Main St Spur

McG

ee C

ir

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Pettys Dr Greystone Ct

E High StWeaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74

LegendTotal Street Width

< 25 ft

25 ft - 50 ft

50 ft - 75 ft

> 75 ft

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Total Street Width

0 0.2 0.40.1Miles

¯

6/6/18

7


THROUGH LANESThrough lanes are defined as a typical travel lane where vehicles are driving straight, as opposed to a turn lane exclusively for turning left or right. The purpose of analyzing the number of through lanes is to see how many lanes of traffic KRT users may have to cross, and if any lanes can be repurposed as space for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross or traverse the study area.

Almost all roads in the study area have one through travel lane for vehicles. The exception is High Cross Road (IL 130), which has two through lanes in each direction, along with left and right turn lanes at University Avenue, Tatman Court/Drive, and Washington Street. Main Street west of Scottswood Drive, University Avenue, and Tatman Drive have three travel lanes total: one travel lane in each direction, plus a center turn lane.

As discussed in the Street Width section, IDOT added a 15 second pedestrian/bicycle only crossing phase at the intersection of High Cross Road and University Avenue/KRT to help trail users safely cross this wide road. The center turn lane on Main Street west of Scottswood Drive could provide space for a median refuge island if a north-south KRT connection is made between the KRT and Weaver Park. Otherwise, roads in the study area either already have bike lanes, or would need road widening and reconstruction to add protected bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

FIGURE 2-3 Intersection of Main Street and University Avenue

FIGURE 2-4 Main Street west of Scottswood Drive has three travel lanes total

8


FIGURE 2-5 Through Lanes

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

Butzow Dr

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

dS L

ierm

an A

ve

Dod

son

Dr

Abb

ey R

d

Kin

ch S

t

Pfe

ffer R

dE Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

dMcGee Rd

S S

mith

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Phi

lo R

d

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Dod

son

Dr E

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Country Squire Dr

Aus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

Fairlawn Dr

E Illinois St

N Beringer Cir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Rutherford Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Abe

rcor

n S

t

Ivanhoe Way

Barr Ave

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Slayback Rd

E California AveM

ontg

omer

y S

t

Clarion Rd

Beacon Hill Cir

Sun

rise

Dr

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Greenridge D

r

Wilson Rd

Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Pennsylvania Ave

E Nevada St

Bridle Ln

S Country Squire D

r


Shemaug

er Trl

E Vermont Ave

Elizabeth St

E Green St

E Main St Spur

McG

ee C

ir

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir



Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74

LegendNumber of Thru Lanes per Direction

1

2

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Number of Through Lanes

0 0.2 0.40.1Miles

¯

6/6/18

9


POSTED SPEED LIMITThe purpose of analyzing the posted speed limit is to see how fast vehicles are likely to drive on streets that bicyclists and pedestrians may travel along and/or across to access the KRT.

Within the study area, the two state routes, University Avenue (US 150) and High Cross Road (IL 130) have a speed limit of 45 miles per hour (MPH). The KRT parallels University Avenue east of Main Street allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to avoid traveling alongside fast vehicles on this road. As previously mentioned, IDOT added a 15 second pedestrian/bicycle only crossing phase at the intersection of High Cross Road and University Avenue/KRT to help trail users safely cross this road with fast moving traffic.

Main Street east of Art Bartell Road, the Main Street Spur to the KRT, and Pfeffer Road all have 35 MPH speed limits. Main Street west of Art Bartell Road, as well as Washington Street have 30 MPH speed limits. This section of Main Street has a lower speed limit as it approaches more centralized areas of Urbana. However, the 30 MPH sections have bike lanes (except for Washington Street between Pfeffer Road and Dodson Drive), but the 35 MPH sections have narrower street widths (see Figure 2-2) and no bike lanes (except for Main Street from Art Bartell Road to Scottswood Drive). Narrower roads, higher speed limits, and no bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not good for encouraging people to walk or bike to the KRT in East Urbana.

FIGURE 2-6 Posted speed limit on Main Street at Scottswood Drive

FIGURE 2-7 Posted speed limit on Pfeffer Road

10


FIGURE 2-8 Posted Speed Limit

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

Dod

son

Dr

S S

mith

Rd

Phi

lo R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

Abb

ey R

d

E Rainbow View

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

Fairlawn Dr

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

t

E Vermont Ave

Dod

son

Dr W

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

E Country Squire Dr

Mon

tgom

ery

StA

ustin

Dr

E Illinois St

N Beringer Cir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Gle

nn D

r

Dod

son

Dr E

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Greenridge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Briarcliff Dr

Ivanhoe Way

Slayback Rd

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood DrRutledge Dr

Sun

rise

Dr

Tatman Ct

McG

ee R

d

Weaver St

Old US 150

Wilson Rd

Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Pennsylvania Ave

E Nevada St

E Delaware Ave

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

E Green St

E Main St Spur

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir



Prairie Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


AMBUCS Park

Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

LegendPosted Speed Limit

25

30

35

45

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Posted Speed Limit

0 0.2 0.40.1Miles

¯

6/6/18

11


FIGURE 2-9 Bicyclists and pedestrians sharing the road accessing the KRT in September 2017

ROAD EDGE MARKING TYPEThe purpose of analyzing the type of marking at the edge of the road is to see if there is any extra space that bicyclists and/or pedestrians can use to access the KRT without traveling in lanes where vehicles are.

One section of road has marked bike lanes: Main Street west of Scottswood Drive. East of Scottswood Drive, the bike lanes transition to sharrows, which provide awareness to drivers that bicyclists may be present, but do not provide dedicated space for bicyclists. Washington Street between High Cross Road and Pfeffer Road, as well as west of Smith Road also has bike lanes.

White stripes exist on Main Street between the Main Street Spur and Pfeffer Road, and University Avenue (US 150) between Main Street and High Cross Road. White stripes do not always indicate that a paved shoulder or extra space exists for bicyclists and pedestrians.

No road edge markings exist on the other street segments analyzed, particularly Main Street east of Scottswood Drive, the Main Street Spur, Pfeffer Road, and Washington Street between Pfeffer Road and Dodson Drive. A lack of road space on the Main Street sections is not inviting for families to bike or walk between Weaver Park and the KRT. Figure 2-9 shows a father and his son bicycling to the KRT on the Main Street Spur, with a couple hiking back from the KRT in the grass on Labor Day 2017.

FIGURE 2-10 Bicyclist sharing the road in September 2017

12


FIGURE 2-11 Road Edge Marking Type

E Main St

E Washington St

Butzow DrS

Lie

rman

Ave

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Dod

son

Dr

Pfe

ffer R

dE Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

Abb

ey R

d

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Kin

ch S

t

Ira S

t

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Lano

re D

r

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

S S

mith

Rd

Hunter St

E Country Squire Dr

Aus

tin D

r

E Illinois St

Dod

son

Dr W

N B

erin

ger C

ir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Rutherford Dr

E University Ave

John Dr

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

E High St

Dod

son

Dr E

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Lantern Hill Dr

E Beringer Cir

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Artesia Xing

Slayback Rd

E California Ave

Sun

rise

Dr

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Wilson Rd

Gua

rdia

n D

r

Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

Dale

III L

n

Abe

rcor

n S

t

E Nevada St

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Walter St

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Mon

tgom

ery

St

E Green St

McG

ee R

d

E Main St Spur

Ivanhoe Way

Prairie Green Dr

Jeffrey Ln

Coddington Cir

Pettys Dr

Squire

Ct

Weave

r Pl

Greystone Ct

Squire Pl

E Illinois St

E High St

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie ParkBrookens Center Sports Complex

Kickapoo Rail Trail

Canaday Park

£¤150

LegendRoad Edge Marking Type

Bike Lanes

None

White Stripes

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Road Edge Marking Type

0 0.2 0.40.1Miles

¯

6/6/18

13


PEDESTRIAN COUNTSCCRPC and the City of Urbana counted the number of pedestrians walking during the day (12-14 hour periods) at selected intersections in the study area in Summer 2016 (Main/Smith) and Summer 2017 (all other locations), before the KRT opened. CCFPD started counting pedestrians after the KRT opened in Fall 2017. A more accurate count of KRT pedestrians should be taken in Summer 2018, approximately one year after the trail’s opening.

The highest number of pedestrians were counted near Weaver Park: 27 each at Main/Smith and University/Smith. 16 pedestrians were counted at Main/University, now the KRT west terminus. 14 pedestrians were counted further west at Main/Lierman, and 4 pedestrians were counted further east at University/High Cross.

FIGURE 2-12 A pedestrian crosses Main Street at Smith Road in August 2017

FIGURE 2-13 Pedestrian at the intersection of Main Street and Dodson Drive

14


FIGURE 2-14 Pedestrian Counts (Summer 2016-Summer 2017)

4162727

14

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois StN

Beringer Cir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd


Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

E Main St Spur

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

E Delaware Ave

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

LegendPedestrian Counts

12 hours: 7 am to 7 pm



Study Area

Sidewalks

Railroads

Roads

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Pedestrian Counts

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

8/9/17

15


BIKE COUNTSCCRPC and the City of Urbana counted the number of bicyclists during the day (12-14 hour periods) at selected intersections in the study area in Summer 2016 (Main/Smith) and Summer 2017 (all other locations), before the KRT opened. CCFPD started counting bicyclists after the KRT opened in Fall 2017. A more accurate count of KRT bicyclists should be taken in Summer 2018, approximately one year after the trail’s opening.

The number of bicyclists increases moving west across the study area, which may be explained by the presence of bike lanes and the greater number of residences traveling in this direction. The highest number of bicyclists is 67 at Main/Lierman, followed by 33 at Main/Smith, 21 at University/Smith, 10 at Main/University (now the KRT west terminus), and finally 4 at University/High Cross. The latter three locations did not have bicycle facilities at the time of the counts, but the latter two locations are now served by the KRT.

FIGURE 2-15 A bicyclist rides west on the Main Street bike lane in September 2017

16


FIGURE 2-16 Bicyclist Counts (Summer 2016-Summer 2017)

4103321

67

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois StN

Beringer Cir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd


Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

E Main St Spur

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

E Delaware Ave

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

LegendBike Counts



Bike Lanes


Sharrows

Study Area

Railroads

Roads

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Bike Counts

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

8/9/17

17


PEDESTRIAN CRASHESSix pedestrian/vehicle crashes occurred in the study area between 2011 and 2015. As with all crash data analysis, the latest five years of pedestrian/vehicle crash data was analyzed for the study, which ranged from 2011 to 2015. Table 2-1 shows the details of all pedestrian/vehicle crashes sorted by year.

The following describes injury types:

• A-Ievel Injury: Incapacitating injury preventing victim from functioning normally (e.g. paralysis, broken/distorted limbs, etc.)

• B-level injury: Non-incapacitating but visible injury (e.g. abrasions, bruising, swelling, limping, etc.)

• C-level injury: Probable but not visible injury (e.g. stiff neck, muscle pain)

The pedestrian/vehicle crashes at Main/Smith near Weaver Park and on Pfeffer Road occurred in the dark, emphasizing the importance of visibility, especially in areas close to the KRT. The lack of sidewalks on Pfeffer Road and Dodson Drive can also be partially to blame for pedestrian/vehicle crashes on those streets.

Location Injury Type Year Light Condition Pavement Condition Details

Washington/Scottswood A 2012 Dark Dry Eastbound vehicle turning left.

Dodson Drive south of Elm St C 2012 Daylight Dry Vehicle driving south.

Washington/Kinch B 2012 Daylight Wet Vehicle driving east.

California Avenue east of MacArthur Dr C 2013 Daylight Dry Vehicle driving east.

Main/Smith C 2013 Dark Dry Vehicle driving east.

Pfeffer Road south of Main St A 2014 Dark Wet Vehicle details unknown.

TABLE 2-1 Pedestrian/Vehicle Crash Details

FIGURE 2-17 Pedestrians sharing the road in September 2017

18


FIGURE 2-18 Pedestrian Crashes (2011-2015)

q

q

qq

q

q

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois St

N B

erin

ger C

ir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd


Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

E Delaware Ave

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

Legend

qPedestrian Crashes


Study Area

Sidewalks

Railroads

Roads

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Pedestrian Crashes

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

8/9/17

19


BIKE CRASHESTwo bike/vehicle crashes occurred in the study area between 2011 and 2015. As with all crash data analysis, the latest five years of bike/vehicle crash data was analyzed for the study, which ranged from 2011 to 2015. Table 2-2 shows the details of both bicycle/vehicle crashes.

The following describes injury types:

• A-Ievel Injury: Incapacitating injury preventing victim from functioning normally (e.g. paralysis, broken/distorted limbs, etc.)

• B-level injury: Non-incapacitating but visible injury (e.g. abrasions, bruising, swelling, limping, etc.)

• C-level injury: Probable but not visible injury (e.g. stiff neck, muscle pain)

Both bike/vehicle crashes occurred at Washington/Smith, in dry daylight conditions, and where bike lanes begin. It is also next to the Urbana Early Childhood School, and at the east side of a school zone. Safety at this intersection will have to be considered if the Bakers Lane trail is built directly north of this intersection to Weaver Park.

Location Injury Type Year Light Condition Pavement Condition Details

Washington/Smith B 2014 Daylight Dry Vehicle driving east.

Washington/Smith B 2014 Daylight Dry Westbound vehicle turning left.

TABLE 2-2 Bike/Vehicle Crash Details

FIGURE 2-19 Lack of separation between bicyclists and vehicles on East Main Street

20


FIGURE 2-20 Bike Crashes (2011-2015)

oo

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois St

N B

erin

ger C

ir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd


Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

E Delaware Ave

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

Legend

oBike Crashes - 2

Bike Lanes


Sharrows

Study Area

Railroads

Roads

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study: Bike Crashes

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

8/9/17

21

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY | Network Analysis

3

STUDY TARGET AUDIENCEAs stated in Chapter 1 (“Project Overview”), the primary purpose of this study is to establish a bicycle and pedestrian facility connection that provides a safe, convenient, and functional transportation link between the KRT and Weaver Park.

Based on that, the “Interested but Concerned” bicyclist type is the target audience of this study. According to Creating Walkable + Bikeable Communities, “broadening the target audience beyond hard-core bicyclists…to the ‘interested but concerned’ demographic, low-income and minority populations, older adults, youth, and other underrepresented groups is an increasingly important objective.”

NETWORK ANALYSIS

Bicyclist TypesResearch conducted at Portland State University has identified four general groups of people based on their attitudes towards bicycling.1 The specific proportions of the population of each group relate to the Portland, Oregon region, but is currently one of the best standards available to estimate user types and proportions.

Following are descriptions of each bicyclist type from the Montgomery County, Maryland Bicycle Planning Guidance and Portland, Oregon Bureau of Transportation:1. Strong & Fearless (<1%)

Comfortable operating in the roadway as a vehicle, regardless of facilities.2. Enthusiastic & Confident (7%)

Comfortable riding on some roadways, but prefer bicycle facilities separate from vehicle traffic (e.g. bike lanes, shared-use path).3. Interested but Concerned (60%)

Would like to ride more, but have safety concerns that are dissuading them. Not comfortable in traffic. Will ride in low-volume, low-speed conditions (e.g. bike boulevards, off-street bikeways).4. No Way No How (33%)

No interest in riding a bike for transportation.

1 Dill, Jennifer, and Nathan McNeil. “Four Types of Cyclists?.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2387.1 (2013): 129-138.

FIGURE 3-1 Four Types of Bicyclists Credit: Creating Walkable + Bikeable Communities

19HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING

more clearly articulate the benefits of making improvements, and assist with project evaluation and prioritization (see Chapters six and seven for more on data an analytical tools).

Finally, it is becoming more common to find detailed analytical work such as project feasibility studies, health impact assessments, and environmental analyses housed within master plans. This finer grain analysis of the impact of recommended projects is symbolic of the perception that walking and bicycling are increasingly relevant in addressing community needs, and reflects local government’s increasing desire for plans that include projects that are ready to go when funding becomes available.

Expanded Range of Accepted Facility Types

The realization that a large portion of the population is not comfortable bicycling in a conventional four to five foot wide bike lane has motivated planners and engineers across the country to explore new infrastructure types that better suit the needs of a so-called “interested but concerned” population.2 This recent expansion of accepted facility types, including bicycle boulevards, buffered bike lanes, and cycle tracks has fundamentally changed the process of developing a bicycle network and creating/

2 Geller. 2005. “4 Types of Transportation Cyclists.” City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. Available at: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=158497&c=44671

updating bicycle facility design guidelines.

Updates to the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in 20093 and the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities in 20124 have expanded planners’ and engineers’ notions of what is possible. The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides practical guidance to planners wishing to implement the most innovative facility designs.

The proliferation of Complete Streets policies has also generated a renewed interest in the design features of walkable urbanism. Boston, MA; New Haven, CT; Los Angeles County; CA; Louisville, KY; and Tacoma, WA are among the local governments that have developed Complete Streets design manuals in recent years. A 2011 draft update to the United States Access Board’s Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)5 also provides new guidance on planning for accessibility, including pedestrian access routes, pedestrian signals, detectable warning surfaces, roundabouts, on-street parking and passenger loading zones, transit stops and shelters, and street furniture.

Increased Expectations for the Public Involvement Effort

A robust public process can dramatically improve community buy-in and lead to lasting progress and support. This usually means that information collected during one or two public meetings, which

3 The 2009 MUTCD is available here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

4 Available here: https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=116

5 Available here: http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/nprm.pdf

Interested

No way no how

Strong and Fearless Enthusiastic

and Confident1% 7%

but Concerned

33%

60%

FOUR TYPES OF BICYCLISTS

Source: Portland Bureau of Transportation

22


The network analysis will help to determine how the study area’s existing transportation network accommodates Interested but Concerned bicyclists as well as pedestrians using three tools. Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) is an established tool that has been used in the 2008 and 2016 City of Urbana Bicycle Master Plans. However, CCRPC has recently developed analyses for Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) and Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) which is beneficial for analyzing conditions for both modes.

BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (BLOS)Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) is the tool that has been used for determining streets to include in the bicycle network in the Urbana Bicycle Master Plan since 2007.

BLOS is used to measure the on-road comfort level of bicyclists as a function of a roadway’s geometry and traffic conditions.2 It essentially quantifies the “bike-friendliness” of a roadway. Roadways with a better (lower) score are more attractive – and usually safer – for cyclists. An online BLOS calculator can be found at http://rideillinois.org/blos/blosform.htm.

BLOS grades relate to the type of bicycle user (as described in “Bicyclist Types”) in the following manner:

• Children and novice riders typically feel comfortable riding on facilities with a BLOS grade of A.

• Casual adult cyclists (Interested but Concerned), including many teenage and college-age cyclists, typically feel comfortable riding on facilities with a BLOS grade of a high C, B, or better. This is the target audience of this study.

• Advanced cyclists (Enthusiastic & Confident) are able to use roads that achieve BLOS grades of low C or high D. Bikes May Use Full Lane signage on highly requested routes with these grades (such as what the City of Urbana installed on Main Street east of Scottswood Drive in Fall

2 Landis, Bruce. Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. Transportation Research Record 1578, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 1997.

2017) will improve conditions for these riders by increasing motorist awareness of bicycle presence.

The following characteristics are used to determine BLOS:

1. Number of Thru Lanes2. Rightmost Lane Width3. Gutter Pan Width4. Marked Extra Width (e.g. shoulder, parking, bike lanes)5. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts6. Posted Speed Limit7. Percentage of Heavy Vehicles (e.g. trucks)8. Pavement Condition Rating (1 = worst; 4 = average; 5 =

best)9. On-Street Parking Percentage Estimate

FIGURE 3-2 BLOS Grade and Score Spectrum

181

BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE11

63 58 97 122 41

10 2016

Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) is the main tool for determining streets to include in the bicycle network.

BLOS19 is used to measure the on-road comfort level of bicyclists as a function of a roadway’s geometry and traffic conditions. It essentially quantifies the “bike-friendliness” of a roadway. Roadways with a better (lower) score are more attractive – and usually safer – for cyclists (see Figure 121). An online BLOS calculator can be found at http://rideillinois.org/blos/blosform.htm.

BLOS is used in the Urbana Bicycle Master Plan to measure existing and future conditions, to set standards for the bicycle network, and to justify recommendations.

19. Landis, Bruce. Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. Transportation Research Record 1578, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 1997.

10.1 BLOS CORRESPONDENCE TO BICYCLE USER TYPESBLOS grades relate to the type of bicycle user (as described in Chapter 4) in the following manner:

• Children and novice riders (Type C) typically feel comfortable riding on facilities with a BLOS grade of A.

• Casual adult cyclists (Type B), including many teenage and college-age cyclists, typically feel comfortable riding on facilities with a BLOS grade of a high C, B, or better. This is the target audience of this plan.

• Advanced cyclists (Type A) are able to use roads that achieve BLOS grades of Low C or High D. Bikes May Use Full Lane signage on highly requested routes with these grades will improve conditions for these riders by increasing motorist awareness of bicycle presence.

An alternative to the BLOS measure, Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), classifies roads more explicitly based on bicycle user types. Future updates to this plan may use the LTS measure to help measure the current and future bicycle network.

10.2 BLOS ESTIMATIONThe following characteristics were used to determine BLOS:

1. Number of Thru Lanes2. Rightmost Lane Width3. Gutter Pan Width4. Marked Extra Width (e.g. shoulder, parking, bike lanes)5. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts6. Posted Speed Limit7. Percentage of Heavy Vehicles (e.g. trucks)8. Pavement Condition Rating (1-worst, 5-best)

o Newly constructed or repaved streets received a rating of 5.0

o Most streets have a rating of 4.0 o Brick roads = 3.0 o Gravel roads = 2.0

9. On-Street Parking Percentage Estimate

A table containing all the different values collected for each of the different characteristics was created in a similar way to the online calculator. This table was used to obtain the BLOS for all of the roadway segments selected to be part of the Urbana bicycle network. Table 39 shows a section of the table used to calculate existing BLOS for selected roadway segments in Urbana. A full explanation of the methodology to estimateBLOS can be found in Appendix 15.

≤ 1.5

> 1.5 and ≤ 2.5

> 2.5 and ≤ 3.5

> 3.5 and ≤ 4.5

> 4.5 and ≤ 5.5

> 5.5

A

C

B

D

F

E

BLOS GRADE & SCORE SPECTRUM

Figure 121 BLOS Grade & Score Spectrum

Best accommodates: Children

Best accommodates: Casual adult cyclists

Best accommodates: Advanced cyclists

http://rideillinois.org/blos/blosform.htm

23


One reason that field data was collected for the following features discussed in Chapter 2 (“Existing Conditions”) was to perform BLOS analysis for the study area: street width (for rightmost lane width and gutter pan width), number of thru lanes, posted speed limit, and road edge marking type (for extra width). Parking is not allowed on arterial and collector streets in the study area, including High Cross Road, Main Street, Pfeffer Road, Smith Road, University Avenue, and Washington Street. Traffic count data was collected by IDOT.

BLOS AnalysisFigure 3-5 shows BLOS grades for the study area. University Avenue (US 150) has E and F grades, and High Cross Road (IL 130) has C and D grades, likely because they are high speed, high traffic roads.

Roads with C grades include Main Street east of Scottswood Drive, Pfeffer Road, Smith Road, and Washington Street between Dodson Drive and Pfeffer Road. These roads are gateways between most of Urbana and the KRT, but have no bicycle facilities. However, they are not ideal for Interested but Concerned cyclists to use, and definitely not for children. With improvements, though, their grades could be lowered to be more attractive for these types of cyclists.

Roads with A and B grades include Main Street west of Scottswood Drive, Washington Street between High Cross Road and Pfeffer Road, and Washington Street west of Dodson Drive. These roads have bike lanes, which help Interested but Concerned cyclists get closer to the KRT.

FIGURE 3-3 Section of Main Street with a grade A BLOS

FIGURE 3-4 Section of University Avenue with a grade F BLOS

24


FIGURE 3-5 Existing Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) Map

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois St

N B

erin

ger C

ir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd


Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

E Delaware Ave

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

LegendExisting BLOS Grade

A

B

C

D

E

F

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Weaver Park & East Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study:Existing Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

25


BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS (BLTS)The following information comes from Peter G. Furth of the Northeastern University College of Engineering, one of the developers of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) (http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/research/level-of-traffic-stress/).

Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a rating given to a route segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on bicyclists. Levels of traffic stress range from 1 to 4 as follow:

1. LTS 1: Strong separation from all except low speed, low volume traffic. Simple crossings. Suitable for children.

2. LTS 2: Except in low speed / low volume traffic situations, cyclists have their own place to ride that keeps them from having to interact with traffic except at formal crossings. Physical separation from higher speed and multi-lane traffic. Crossings that are easy for an adult to negotiate. A level of traffic stress that most adults can tolerate, particularly those sometimes classified as “interested but concerned.”

3. LTS 3: Involves interaction with moderate speed or multilane traffic, or close to proximity to higher speed traffic. A level of traffic stress acceptable to those classified as “enthused and confident.”

4. LTS 4: Involves interaction with higher speed traffic or close proximity to high speed traffic. A level of stress acceptable only to those classified as “strong and fearless.”

There are criteria for determining LTS for route segments,intersection approaches, and crossings. LTS scores for a routecombine over segments using weakest link logic. That means thatif most of the links on a route have LTS 1 or 2, but one or a few linkson a route have LTS 3, the route as a whole has LTS 3.

BLTS AnalysisFigure 3-6 shows BLTS scores for the study area. University Avenue (US 150) west of the KRT and High Cross Road (IL 130) are BLTS 4, likely because they are high speed, high traffic roads.BLTS 3 (medium-high stress) locations include Main Street (Scottswood Drive-Art Bartell Road, west of Lierman Avenue), Smith Road (University Avenue-Main Street), and Washington Street (west of Pfeffer Road). The Main Street and part of the Washington Street segments have bike lanes, but vehicle traffic counts affected the scores in these locations. Smith Road does not have a dedicated bikeway.BLTS 2 (medium stress) locations include Kinch Street, Main Street (east of Scottswood Drive, Art Bartell Road-Lierman Avenue), and Washington Street (High Cross Road-Pfeffer Road). All of these locations have bike lanes, except for Main Street east of Scottswood Drive. Kinch Street, Main Street east of Scottswood Drive, and the Washington Street segment also have low vehicle traffic counts (less than 2,500 vehicles per day).

http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/research/level-of-traffic-stress/

http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/research/level-of-traffic-stress/

26


FIGURE 3-6 Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) Map

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E Florida Ave

E University Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

dE Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois St

N B

erin

ger C

ir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

E Vermont Ave

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd


Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Ber

mud

a D

r

Dod

son

Dr E

E High St

I-74 EI-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abbey Rd

Pfe

ffer R

dE Michigan Ave

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee Rd

Art Bartell Rd

E Vermont Ave

MacArthur DrE California Ave

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

LegendBLTS Score

1 = Low Stress

2 = Medium Stress

3 = Medium-High Stress

4 = High Stress

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Weaver Park & East Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study:Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

27


PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS (PLTS)The following information comes from the Oregon Department of Transportation (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/APMv2_Ch14.pdf).

Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a rating given to a route segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on pedestrians. Levels of traffic stress range from 1 to 4 as follow:

1. LTS 1: Represents little to no traffic stress and requires little attention to the traffic situation. This is suitable for all users including children 10 years or younger, groups of people, and people using a wheeled mobility device. The facility is a sidewalk or shared-use path with a buffer between the pedestrian and motor vehicle facility. Pedestrians feel safe and comfortable on the pedestrian facility. Motor vehicles are either far from the pedestrian facility and/or traveling at a low speed and volume. All users are willing to use this facility.

2. LTS 2: Represents little traffic stress but requires more attention to the traffic situation than of which young children may be capable. This would be suitable for children over 10, teens, and adults. All users should be able to use the facility, but some factors may limit people using wheeled mobility devices. Sidewalk condition should be good with limited areas of fair condition. Roadways may have higher speeds and/or higher volumes. Most users are willing to use this facility.

3. LTS 3: Represents moderate stress and is suitable for adults. An able-bodied adult would feel uncomfortable but safe using this facility. This includes higher speed roadways with smaller buffers. Small areas in the facility may be impassable for a person using a wheeled mobility device and/or requires the user to travel on the shoulder/bike lane/street. Some users are willing to use this facility.

4. LTS 4: Represents high traffic stress. Only able-bodied adults with limited route choices would use this facility. Traffic speeds are moderate to high with narrow or no pedestrian facilities provided. Typical locations include high speed, multi-lane roadways with narrow sidewalks and buffers. This also includes facilities with no sidewalk. Only the most confident or trip-purpose driven users will use this facility.

There are criteria for determining LTS for route segments, intersection approaches, and crossings. LTS for a route combine over segments using weakest link logic. That means that if most of the links on a route have LTS 1 or 2, but one or a few links on a route have LTS 3, the route as a whole has LTS 3.

PLTS AnalysisFigure 3-7 shows the PLTS scores for the study area. University Avenue (US 150) and High Cross Road (IL 130) are PLTS 4, likely because they are high speed, high traffic roads. Main Street east of Scottswood Drive is PLTS 4 because it does not have any sidewalks. Figure 1-1 shows where sidewalks and shared-use paths exist; many streets with a PLTS 4 score in Figure 3-7 do not have sidewalks. The Main Street segment with a PLTS 4 score is directly between the KRT and Weaver Park, which shows that pedestrian facilities are needed between these two locations.

Most other locations in the study area are PLTS 3 or 2, which presents medium-high or medium stress respectively for pedestrians, including Main Street west of Scottswood Drive, Pfeffer Road south of Illinois Street, Tatman Drive, and Washington Street west of Scottswood Drive (except between Sunny Lane and MacArthur Drive). These locations have sidewalks or sidepaths.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/APMv2_Ch14.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/APMv2_Ch14.pdf

28


FIGURE 3-7 Existing Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) Map

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

Kin

ch S

t

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Fairlawn Dr

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

Easy St

E Rainbow View

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

E Anthony Dr

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois St

N B

erin

ger C

ir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Gre

enrid

ge D

r

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Car

rie A

ve

Kingston Dr

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd


Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout DrE Green St

N P

opla

r St

Cole P

l

McG

ee C

irK

icka

poo

Trl

E Delaware Ave

Michelle Ln

Prairie Green Dr

Coddington Cir

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

LegendPLTS Score

1 = Low Stress

2 = Medium Stress

3 = Medium-High Stress

4 = High Stress

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Stream

Urbana City Limits

Weaver Park & East Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study:Existing Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS)

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

29

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY | Public Involvement

4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

CCRPC has undertaken significant public outreach efforts in recent years to develop other communitywide plans, and many of them mention the KRT. The following is a summary of public input about KRT in these plans:

• Active Choices – Champaign County Greenways & Trails Plan (2014): public comments were received in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013, and the KRT and its extension through Urbana were the recommendations that received the most public votes.

• Sustainable Choices – Champaign-Urbana Long Range Transportation Plan (2014): public comments were received in 2013 and 2014, and the KRT from Urbana to St. Joseph was the recommendation that received the second most public votes.

• Urbana Park District Trails Master Plan and City of Urbana Bicycle Master Plan (UBMP) (2016): public comments were received at the same time for both plans in 2014, and the KRT corridor between High Cross and Smith Roads was the recommendation that received the third most public votes. Bikeway installation along Main Street between University Avenue and Scottswood Drive also received a significant amount of votes.

FIGURE 4-1 Active Choices Public Workshop Series #1 - Urbana Group Map

Arboretum

Meadowbrook Park

Stone Creek Golf Course

Urbana Country Club

Weaver Park

Crystal Lake Park/Busey Woods

Wendl's

Perkins Road Park Site

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Judge Webber Park

Blair Park

Douglass Park

Lohmann Park

Carle Park

King Park

South Ridge Park

Illini Grove

Chief Shemauger Park

Stone Creek Golf Course

South Quad

U of I Main Quad

Crestview Park

Bardeen QuadScott Park

Wheatfield Park

Victory Park

Leal Park


Oval Allee

Soccer Practice Field by Human Kinetics

Boneyard Greenway

Wesley Park

Canaday Park

Boneyard Greenway

Beardsley Park

Skelton Park

Bristol Park

Hallene Gateway Plaza


Washington Park

Phillips Recreation Center

Washington Park

Sunnycrest Tot Lot

Boneyard Greenway

Urbana's Art in the Park

Patterson Parklet

Bridgewater Park

Helms Park

Downtown Mini Park

S F

irst S

t

E Airport Rd

S R

ace

St

E Main St

S V

ine

St

E Washington St

E Windsor Rd S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

E Florida Ave

S A

nder

son

St

S O

ak S

t

E University Ave

S P

hilo

Rd

Brownfield Rd

Kerr Ave

Phi

lo R

d

W Green St

E Mumford Dr

W Main St

Windsor Rd

W Florida Ave

W Windsor Rd

W Illinois St

Myr

a R

idge

Dr

Perkins Rd

W University Ave

S F

ourth

St

N F

ourth

St

W Anthony Dr

N G

oodw

in A

ve

E Anthony Dr N

E McHenry St

N B

road

way

Ave

Amber Ln

E Green St

E Bradley Ave

Gregory Dr

E Kirby Ave

S L

inco

ln A

ve

W Springfield Ave

S S

tone

Cre

ek B

lvd

St. Mary's Rd

S L

ierm

an A

ve

E Stone Creek Blvd

W Hazelwood Dr

Peabody Dr

W Bradley Ave

E Church St

O'Brien Dr

Fairview Ave

Bar

rack

s D

r

E Springfield Ave

W Kenyon Rd

Colorado Ave

Oak

St

Hazelwood Dr

Car

roll

Ave

W St Marys Rd

N R

ace

St

W Washington St

Eas

tern

Ave

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Gerty Dr

E Perkins Rd

N V

ine

St

N F

irst S

t

E Colorado Ave

E Country Club Rd

Susan Stone Dr

I-74 E TO US 45

S G

oodw

in A

ve

W George Huff Dr

N M

athe

ws

Ave

W Country Club Rd

Stadium Dr

E George Huff Dr

S G

eorg

e H

uff D

r

Bailey Dr

Bric

khou

ses

Rd

E Marketview Dr

Main St

W Mumford Dr

W McHenry St

S C

otta

ge G

rove

Ave

N C

ount

ry C

lub

Rd

S Philo Rd

E Colorado Ave

Gerty Dr

E Green St

W Country Club Rd

E Elm St

S L

inco

ln A

ve

S W

right

St

S G

oodw

in A

ve

N L

inco

ln A

ve

E Windsor Rd

E University Ave

E Illinois St

E Kenyon Rd

S R

ace

St

E High St

E Washington St

Perkins Rd

Hazelwood Dr

S F

ourth

St

Will

ow R

d

Proposed Greenway in Weaver

and Prairie Parks

Proposed Greenway in Weaver

and Prairie Parks

Bike Route along Washington StreetBike Route along Washington Street

Make Myra Ridge Drive a shared street or Complete Street

Make Myra Ridge Drive a shared street or Complete Street

Connectivity to Kickapoo Trail (3 votes)Connectivity to Kickapoo Trail (3 votes)

Include Lanes and Routes being implemented now. Include Lanes and Routes being implemented now.

Pedestrian sidewalk from Airport Rd to Perkins Rd.

Pedestrian sidewalk from Airport Rd to Perkins Rd.

Show Brownfield Woods?Show Brownfield Woods?

Protected Bike lane along University AveProtected Bike lane along University Ave

Include Boneyard Park; being implemented nowInclude Boneyard Park; being implemented now

Scary!Scary!

Dangerous; UncomfortableDangerous; Uncomfortable

Dangerous; Uncomfortable

Dangerous; Uncomfortable

No bike access to MTDEast of Mapleon University Ave

No bike access to MTDEast of Mapleon University Ave

GreenwayGreenway

Uncomfortable Pedestrian

Crossing

Uncomfortable Pedestrian

Crossing

Better connectivity

between Main Campus

and Vet Med

Better connectivity

between Main Campus

and Vet Med

8’ Sidewalk on south side of Florida Ave

8’ Sidewalk on south side of Florida Ave

8’ Sidepath8’ Sidepath

Narrow bridge; Barrier?Narrow bridge; Barrier?

GreenwayGreenway

Existing oversized box culvert underneath interstate. Potential path?

Existing oversized box culvert underneath interstate. Potential path?

No dedicated bike access to UMS/UHS

No dedicated bike access to UMS/UHS

On-Street Bike Lanes

On-Street Bike Lanes

Make crossing more comfortableMake crossing more comfortable

Complete Street from Windsor Rd. to UMS

on Vine Street. Include Blair Park

Complete Street from Windsor Rd. to UMS

on Vine Street. Include Blair Park

Consideration of route to connect Urbana & ChampaignConsideration of route to connect Urbana & Champaign

Better North-to-South connectivity across

campus. Difficult to get across without

criss-crossing and backtracking - especially

at 10 minute passing period.

Better North-to-South connectivity across

campus. Difficult to get across without

criss-crossing and backtracking - especially

at 10 minute passing period.

Extend Boneyard creek beautification to Lincoln AveExtend Boneyard creek beautification to Lincoln Ave

Improve sidewalks connecting Urbana

& Campus, e.g. Green, Springfield,

Main, etc.

Improve sidewalks connecting Urbana

& Campus, e.g. Green, Springfield,

Main, etc.

Want to see a green parkway between roads and sidepaths

with grass & trees. Could be done on

Windsor Rd.

Want to see a green parkway between roads and sidepaths

with grass & trees. Could be done on

Windsor Rd.

Bike RouteBike Route

Better sidewalk connectivity to

surrounding neighborhoods

Better sidewalk connectivity to

surrounding neighborhoods

University/Broadway:UnfriendlyUniversity/Broadway:Unfriendly

People bike through to

Quad

People bike through to

Quad

Existing Trails & Bikeways

Existing Greenways

Public Suggestions and Comments

Conflict Area

Proposed Greenway Area

Proposed Bikeway Area

Proposed Bikeway

Proposed Sidepath/Greenway (Off-Street)

Proposed Sidepath or Complete Street

Shared-Use Path (sidepath)

Divided Shared-Use Path

Shared Lane Markings (sharrows)

Bike Lanes (on street)

Shared-Use Path (off-street)

UIUC Bike Path

Public Park

Public Golf Course

Public/Private Recreational

Private Recreational

Legend

Urbana Group MapPublic Workshop 1, 11-15-12

N

30


PUBLIC WORKSHOP #1On September 7, 2017, the first public workshop for this study was held in the Champaign County Highway Department conference room. Staff from CCRPC, Urbana Park District, CCFPD, and the City of Urbana jointly hosted this open house, presenting information about the newly opened KRT and soliciting feedback on desired connections and features. “Appendix A” lists all public input gathered during this workshop.

Thirty-five people attended the open house style workshop. Attendees were given a comment card to complete. Overall, the subjects mentioned the most were connectivity; crossings; safety; and KRT access from the south, west, and Weaver Park. Trailheads and wayfinding were also frequently mentioned.

FIGURE 4-2 UBMP/UTMP Public Workshop #2 Recommended Route Votes

I-74

S F

irst S

t

Airport Rd

Phi

lo R

d

E Windsor Rd

Olympian Rd

N M

arke

t St

S R

ace

St

E Main St

S V

ine

St

E Oaks Rd

E Washington St

S F

ourth

St

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Cunn

ingh

am A

ve

N C

otto

nwoo

d R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

S O

ak S

t

S C

otto

nwoo

d R

d

And

erso

n S

t

E Florida Ave

S S

ixth

St

E University Ave

Oak

St

Brownf

ield

Rd

Perkins Rd

Gregory Dr

Kerr Ave

Will

ow R

d

Fairlawn Dr

W Green St

E Mumford Dr

W Main St

N W

alnu

t St

S O

rcha

rd S

t

W Florida Ave

S F

ifth

St

N F

ifth

St

Scovill St

Hazelwood Dr

W Windsor Rd

S B

usey

Ave

E Anthony Dr

S T

hird

St

W Illinois St

N F

ourth

St

Myr

a R

idge

Dr

Springfield Ave

E Green St

Apo

llo D

r

W University Ave

E Bradley Ave

E Kirby Ave

W Anthony Dr

N G

oodw

in A

ve

Hill St

E McHenry St

Eads St

N B

road

way

Ave

Amber Ln

N W

right

St

N O

ak S

t

Butzow Dr

Birc

h S

t

W Elm St

N C

oler

Ave

Bradley Ave

Kin

ch S

t

Stoughton St

E Park St

W Pennsylvania Ave

S L

inco

ln A

ve

S S

tone

Cre

ek B

lvd

N L

inco

ln A

ve

S L

ierm

an A

ve

Saint Mary's Rd

Paul Ave

S S

mith

Rd

N R

omin

e S

t

Dod

son

Dr

Sherwin Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

Car

le A

ve

S W

right

St

Abb

ey R

d

Mercury Dr

Div

isio

n A

ve

Pfe

ffer R

d

Church St

St Marys Rd

O'Brien Dr

Urb

ana

Ave

Bar

rack

s D

r

Easy St

I74 W

T IL 13

0 S

W Kenyon Rd

E Clark St

Colorado Ave

Locu

st S

t

S L

ynn

St

E Rainbow View

N M

aple

St

S S

econ

d S

t

Cou

ntry

view

Rd

Columbia Blvd

Gur

th D

r

W Oaks Rd

Lano

re D

r

Car

roll

Ave

Scottswood D

r

Ira S

t

S M

athe

ws

Ave

Griggs St

Wat

er S

t

E Olympian Dr

Eas

tern

Ave

Eliot Dr

Gerty Dr

Abe

rcor

n S

t

Liberty Ave

Sal

ine

Ct

Kyle St

N S

ixth

St

N V

ine

St

S G

oodw

in A

ve

Sky

line

Dr

Willard St

N S

mith

Rd

US 45 T I74 W

Clifford Dr

Gol

fvie

w D

r

E Illinois St

E Beringer Cir

Burlison Dr

Tatman Dr

S M

aple

St

Bar

tlow

Rd

Rutherford Dr

Linview A

ve

Row

ena

Dr

Coo

ks L

n

E Eureka St

George St

Melrose Blvd

Bliss Dr

S B

road

way

Ave

Vernon Dr

Mitchem Dr

Burkwood Dr

Somer Dr

Gra

nge

Dr

Lydia Ct

Cas

tlero

ck D

r

Blue Spruce Dr

E Harding Dr

Rocky Ln

Wadsw

orth Ln

Apricot D

r

Gra

ss A

ly

Old US 150

Barnes St

Ran

som

Pl

S G

rego

ry S

t

E Water St

Pell Cir

Ear

le C

t

Ash

St

Will

ow R

d

Hazelwood Dr

Gerty Dr

S B

road

way

Ave

S R

ace

St

S L

inco

ln A

ve

E Windsor Rd

S W

right

St

Willard St

Existing Trails & BikewaysShared-Use Path

UIUC Bike Path

Bike Lanes (on-street)

Shared Lane Markings (sharrows)

Shared Bike/Parking Lanes

Bike Route

Existing UPD TrailsPaved Trail

Soft/Nature Trail

Other FeaturesUPD Parks

Non-UPD Parks

Railroads

Street

Water Body

Urbana City Limits

0 0.5 10.25Miles

´1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 7

8 - 11

Number of Requests

Public Workshop #2April 2014 - Recommended Route Votes

City of UrbanaBicycle Master Plan

FIGURE 4-3 Public Workshop #1 attendees at the Champaign County Highway Department conference room

31


Following is more information received at the workshop via comment card:

• The issues that attendees most want to see addressed are access to Weaver Park, connectivity, and safety.

• Most people are interested in riding their bike on the KRT.• Most people are interested in using the KRT for recreation.• Most attendees were from Urbana, and the highest

amount were Baby Boomers (between the ages of 55-74), presumably with more time to use the KRT. Two-thirds of participants were male.

• At the time of the workshop, the KRT had only been open for two weeks, but 60% of attendees had already used it. Initial observations included comments on crossings, safety (including intersection safety), trail surface, and views.

• Highly requested amenities that attendees would like to see added to the KRT include restrooms, wayfinding, trailheads, signage, drinking fountains, and trees.

• Highly requested KRT trailhead amenities included restrooms, wayfinding and maps, and drinking fountains.

Figure 4-6 shows that most people want a connection between Weaver Park and the KRT along the Main Street corridor. Other highly desired options include a north-south connection from the KRT to Pfeffer Road and from there to Washington Street, and extending the KRT westward with a connection to Weaver Park via Smith Road. This input was the basis of the alternatives developed for analysis in Chapter 6 (“Alternatives Analysis”).

FIGURE 4-4 Public Workshop #1 attendees and staff discussing the boards’ contents

FIGURE 4-5 Public Workshop #1 participants drawing on maps

32


FIGURE 4-6 Public Workshop #1 Desired Connections Map

I-74 E I-74 W

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

E Florida Ave

Phi

lo R

d

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Butzow Dr

E Anthony Dr

Kin

ch S

t

Fairlawn Dr

S C

otta

ge G

rove

Ave

S L

ierm

an A

ve

S S

mith

Rd

Dod

son

Dr

Glo

ver A

ve

Briarcliff Dr

S P

opla

r St

Abb

ey R

d

Pfe

ffer R

d

E Michigan Ave

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Easy St

E Rainbow View

Lano

re D

r

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Ira S

t

Kerr Ave

McGee

Rd

Dod

son

Dr W

Hunter St

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Abe

rcor

n S

tD

odso

n D

r E

E Vermont Ave

Bra

dy L

n

I74 W

T IL 13

0 S R

amp S

Slayback St

N S

mith

Rd

Wab

ash

Ave

Oge

lthor

pe A

ve

Mon

tgom

ery

StAus

tin D

r

Haydon Dr

E Illinois StN

Beringer Cir

E Beringer Cir

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Eastern Dr

Rutherford Dr

Curtiss Dr

John Dr

E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Toni Ln

Lantern Hill Dr

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

Kingston Dr

John

son

Ave

Barr Ave

Gra

nt P

l

E California Ave

Clarion Rd

Lincolnwood Dr

Beacon Hill Cir

Rutledge D

r

Tatman Ct

Weaver St

Old US 150

Har

tle A

ve

E Delaware Ave

Laurel Dr

War

d S

t

Wilson Rd

Dew

ey S

t

Enn

is L

n

E Pennsylvania Ave

E Nevada St

Pat

ton

Pl

Bridle Ln

Bohn Cir

S C

ount

ry S

quire

Dr

Stout Dr

E Water St

E Green St

E Main St Spur

Cole P

l

N C

otta

ge G

rove

Ave

Prairie Green Dr

Gro

ssba

ch D

r

Coddington Cir

Ber

mud

a D

r

E Anthony Dr

N S

mith

Rd

Dod

son

Dr E

E Michigan Ave

E Green St

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

AMBUCS Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail


Canaday Park

Crestview Park Stone Creek Golf Course

UV130

£¤150

§̈¦74§̈¦74

Champaign County GIS Consortium

LegendLinear Comments

1

2 - 3

4 - 5

6 - 7

Existing Bikeways & TrailsBike Lanes


Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Stream

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits

Urbana KRT Study Public Workshop #1 Desired Connections Map

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

33


PUBLIC WORKSHOP #2On May 23, 2018, the second public workshop for this study was held in the Champaign County Highway Department conference room. Staff from CCRPC, Urbana Park District, CCFPD, and the City of Urbana jointly hosted this open house, presenting nine alternatives (see Chapter 6, “Alternatives Analysis”) to the public for review and comment. Exhibit boards displayed maps, opportunities, and constraints for these nine alternatives; as well as results from the first public workshop and network analyses. “Appendix B” lists all public input gathered during this workshop.

Twenty people submitted input in May 2018, including fourteen at the workshop, five via the CCRPC website, and one via email. Participants were given a comment card to complete, and asked to choose their preferred alternative.

The top three alternatives requested by the public are:

1. Alternative #4: Bakers Lane via Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR)

2. Alternative #3: Smith Road via Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR)

3. Alternative #2: Main Street Sidepath

FIGURE 4-7 Public Workshop #2 participants reviewing and voting on alternatives

FIGURE 4-8 Public Workshop #2 alternative exhibit board with participant comments

34


FIGURE 4-9 Public Workshop #2 Preferred Alternative Votes Map

¬«4

¬«8

¬«5

¬«7

¬«7

¬«3

¬«4

¬«2¬«1

¬«9

¬«8¬«5 ¬«6

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

Dod

son

Dr

Pfe

ffer R

d

Easy St

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Bra

dy L

n

E Illinois St

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Hunter St

Abbey Rd

E High St

Rutherford Dr

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Ira S

t

Lantern Hill Dr

N S

mith

Rd

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

nE Rainbow View

Kin

ch S

t

E California Ave

Sun

rise

Dr

Tatman Ct

Old US 150

N B

erin

ger C

ir

Lano

re D

r

Carrie

Ave

S Smith R

d

Toni Ln

Dew

ey S

t

Dod

son

Dr W

Enn

is L

n

Weaver St

E Nevada St

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

E Green St

Aus

tin D

rMichelle Ln

Coddington Cir

E Illinois St

E High St

Weaver Park


Kickapoo Rail Trail

Canaday Park


LegendAlternatives - Weighted Scores

0.5 - 0.8

0.8 - 1.0

1.1 - 1.5

1.6 - 5.3

5.3 - 6.5



Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits

Urbana KRT Study Public Meeting #2 - Preferred Alternative Votes

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

1. Main Street Bike Lanes Extension (0.36 miles)2. Main Street Sidepath (0.49 miles)3. Smith Road via Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) (approximately 0.61 miles)4. Bakers Lane via NSRR (approximately 1.01 miles)5. Pfeffer Road extended (UCSD driveway) to Main St. (0.58 miles)6. Industrial Circle extended (approximately 0.08 miles)7. Pfeffer Road & Washington Street (1.01 miles)8. Tatman Court extended via High Cross Rd. (approximately 0.43 miles)9. Art Bartell Road extended via NSRR (approximately 0.94 miles)

Alternatives presented for voting:

35

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY | Facility Types

5 FACILITY TYPES

This study discusses a mixture of off-street trails and on-street bikeways to foster a cohesive bicycle and pedestrian network that links parks, major destinations, and areas in the City of Urbana. Information presented below is also part of the 2016 Urbana Park District Trails Master Plan and 2016 City of Urbana Bicycle Master Plan (UBMP).

At a minimum, all bikeways installed in the City of Urbana shall follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), with additional guidance on bikeway design and installation provided by the following documents:

• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012)

• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

Additionally, all pedestrian facilities installed in the City of Urbana shall follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with additional guidance on pedestrian design and installation provided by the proposed Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

OFF-STREET FACILITIESTrails and dedicated paths are available to pedestrians and/or bicyclists, which offer significant separation from other vehicle traffic.

The following path types are for shared-use between bicyclists and other non-vehicle modes:

• Shared-Use Path (Off-street)• Shared-Use Path (Sidepath)• Rail-to-Trail• Rail-with-Trail

The following path type is for the exclusive use of pedestrians:

• Sidewalk

Shared-Use TrailsThe ideal width for all shared-use paths is 10’, with a minimum recommended width of 8’, in order to facilitate bi-directional and multi-modal traffic. Striping is not necessary on shared-use paths.

A clear zone should be maintained adjacent to both sides of all shared-use paths for the use of joggers and to keep vegetation from erupting through the trail surface. The desired clear zone width is 3’, and the minimum clear zone width should not be less than 2’. Therefore, a 16’ right-of-way (ROW) is recommended for shared-use paths, with a minimum recommended ROW of 12’.

Where a roadway runs adjacent to or near a shared-use path (e.g. a sidepath), the roadway should be separated from the shared-use path with a 5’ wide clear zone. Therefore, 15’ is recommended between the far side of the shared-use path and the road or rail edge, and a minimum of 13’ is recommended between the two locations.

36


Shared-Use Path (Off-street)

A shared-use trail is a recreational pathway that pedestrians, bicyclists, rollerbladers, people with baby strollers, and skateboarders may use. They may connect parks, employment centers, shopping centers, and public places.

Shared-Use Path (Sidepath)

Sidepaths are shared-use paths running immediately parallel to a roadway, similar to, but wider than a sidewalk. In general, sidepaths may be better choices than on-road bikeways for faster, busier roads with fewer access points and with well-designed intersections.

Rail-to-Trail

A “rail-to-trail” is a shared-use path, either paved or unpaved, built within the right-of-way of a former railroad,1 perhaps under federal railbanking law.

1 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Page 1-3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

FIGURE 5-1 Walmart Path

FIGURE 5-2 Main Street Sidepath in Weaver Park

FIGURE 5-3 Kickapoo Rail Trail east of Main Street

37


Rail-with-Trail

A “rail-with-trail” is a shared-use path that parallels active railtrack, sometimes as an easement on railroad right-of-way. The Federal Highway Administration’s “Rails with Trails: Lessons Learned” provides best practices information on rails-with-trails.

Pedestrian Facilities

Sidewalks

Pedestrians primarily use sidewalks and they should be accessible to all users. It is important that sidewalks be provided extensively throughout the transportation network to provide pedestrians with a safe place to travel. Sidewalks are typically 4-6’ wide, and are therefore not appropriate for shared-use with bicyclists. However, it should be noted that all bicyclists who choose to travel on sidewalks have the same rights as pedestrians, and must yield to pedestrians. Accessible sidewalk facilities should be provided in all sidewalk reconstruction and new construction.

FIGURE 5-4 MetroBikeLink Trail, Belleville, IL Credit: Harry Sanders

FIGURE 5-5 Sidewalk on East Main Street

38


ON-STREET FACILITIESOn-road bicycle facilities have been increasingly installed in Urbana and nationwide over the past decade. Using the road often improves safety by increasing cyclist visibility, particularly at intersections, where most crashes occur. On-road bikeways are especially appropriate on moderate to lower speed roads with more than a few intersections, driveways, and entrances. They also eliminate conflicts with pedestrians by keeping bikes off of sidewalks, which are not wide enough to handle both modes.

Bike LanesAn on-road bike lane is a one-way path that carries bicyclists in the same direction as the adjacent motorized travel lane. Bike lanes should be located on the right side of the roadway, between the parking lane (if one exists) and the travel lane. Bike lanes can also be separated from travel lanes using striping (as is done for buffered bike lanes) or physical items like delineator posts (as is done on cycle tracks). Bicyclists traveling in bike lanes have the same rights and responsibilities as motorized vehicles.

Bikes May Use Full LaneA Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign may be used to inform road users that bicyclists may occupy the full travel lane. This sign may be used on roadways where no bike lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by bicyclists are present, and where travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists and motor vehicles to operate side by side. This sign may be used in conjunction with sharrows.

FIGURE 5-6 Bike lane on Main Street by Weaver Park

FIGURE 5-7 Bikes May Use Full Lane sign on East Main Street

39


Sharrrows (shared lane markings)Bicycle positioning on the roadway is key to avoiding crashes with cars turning at intersections. Shared lane markings, also known as “sharrows,” are used to indicate correct straight-ahead bicycle position at intersections with turn lanes, and at intersections where bike lanes are temporarily discontinued due to turn lanes or other factors. Sharrows can also be used in conjunction with Bikes May Use Full Lanes signs.

FIGURE 5-8 Sharrow on East Main Street

40

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY | Alternatives Analysis

6 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Based on existing conditions and public input, the study steering committee developed nine alternatives to analyze (see Figure 6-1). This analysis will help determine the recommended and phased bicycle/pedestrian facilities that all agencies should pursue to connect the Kickapoo Rail Trail to Weaver Park.

LAND ACCESSSome of these alternatives traverse private property, and would require an easement (i.e. permission) or acquisition to install a trail. If land acquisition is pursued, lead agencies will be determined though future planning. Properties sought for acquisition will be determined through working with only willing landowners for fair market value.

SIDEPATH SUITABILITYRide Illinois (formerly League of Illinois Bicyclists (LIB)) developed a Sidepath Suitability tool (http://rideillinois.org/blos/sidepathform.htm) using concepts from the AASHTO Bike Guide and the Active Transportation Alliance’s Tech Sheet #1 – “Sidepath Bicycle Facilities.” This tool rates the suitability of a sidewalk or sidepath as a bicycle facility. This is done by evaluating the number of driveway and street crossings, the speed and volume of the parallel road, the anticipated pedestrian use, the width and length of the path, and the design of the path at intersection crossings. This tool was used to help rate post-build scenarios in Alternatives #2, 5, 7, and 8 below.

Suitability Score / Suitability:

• 7 or less: Most Suitable• 8-9: Somewhat Suitable• 10-11: Least Suitable• 12 or greater: Not Suitable.

CROSSWALK ANALYSISPedestrian and bicycle safety is important at uncontrolled vehicle crossings (i.e. where vehicles do not stop). This is especially true of target KRT users including families and Interested but Concerned cyclists. The 2017 Champaign-Urbana Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Guidelines (https://ccrpc.org/documents/crosswalk-guidelines/) were used to evaluate if and what type of pedestrian and bicycle crossing is appropriate for Alternative #4.

http://rideillinois.org/blos/sidepathform.htm

http://rideillinois.org/blos/sidepathform.htm

https://ccrpc.org/documents/crosswalk-guidelines/

https://ccrpc.org/documents/crosswalk-guidelines/

41


FIGURE 6-1 Study Alternatives Analysis Map

¬«4

¬«8

¬«5

¬«7

¬«7

¬«3

¬«4

¬«2¬«1

¬«9

¬«8¬«5 ¬«6

E Main St

E Washington St

E University Ave

Dod

son

Dr

Pfe

ffer R

d

Easy St

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Sco

ttsw

ood

Dr

Art

Bar

tell

Rd

Bra

dy L

n

E Illinois St

Tatman Dr

Gle

nn D

r

Hunter StAbbey Rd

E High St

Rutherford Dr

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

Ira S

t

Lantern Hill Dr

N S

mith

Rd

E Elm St

Sun

ny L

n

E Rainbow View

Kin

ch S

t

E California Ave

Sun

rise

Dr

Tatman Ct

Old US 150

N B

erin

ger C

ir

Lano

re D

r

Carrie

Ave

S Smith R

d

Toni Ln

Dew

ey S

t

Dod

son

Dr W

Enn

is L

n

Weaver St

E Nevada St

N H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

E Green St

Aus

tin D

r

Michelle Ln

Coddington Cir

E Illinois St

E High St

Weaver Park


Kickapoo Rail Trail

Canaday Park


LegendAlternatives for Analysis

Zones of Potential Connectivity



Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits

Urbana KRT Study Alternatives Analysis

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

¯

1. Main Street Bike Lanes Extension (0.36 miles)2. Main Street Sidepath (0.49 miles)3. Smith Road via Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) (approximately 0.61 miles)4. Bakers Lane via NSRR (approximately 1.01 miles)5. Pfeffer Road extended (UCSD driveway) to Main St. (0.58 miles)6. Industrial Circle extended (approximately 0.08 miles)7. Pfeffer Road & Washington Street (1.01 miles)8. Tatman Court extended via High Cross Rd. (approximately 0.43 miles)9. Art Bartell Road extended via NSRR (approximately 0.94 miles)

Alternatives for Analysis

42


ALTERNATIVE #1: MAIN STREET BIKE LANES EXTENSIONAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-2 shows the alignment of Alternative #1. This alternative extends the existing bike lanes on Main Street east from its terminus on Scottswood Drive to the current KRT terminus near the University Avenue/Main Street Spur intersection.

When the bike lanes were installed in 2013, sharrows were installed approximately 0.05 miles east of Scottswood Drive where the road narrows and can no longer accommodate bike lanes and travel lanes. After the KRT opened in Fall 2017, the City of Urbana extended the sharrows east from this point to the KRT terminus near University Avenue, to increase motorist awareness of the expected increase in bicyclists accessing the KRT.

The Main Street bike lanes extend westward 1.9 miles to Springfield Avenue in Downtown Urbana. The 2016 UBMP recommends signing a Bike Route on Main Street from Downtown Urbana to the University of Illinois (see Figure 6-3). From there, the Main Street corridor continues as White Street in Champaign, and the Multimodal Corridor Enhancement (MCORE) Project will install bike lanes on White Street to Downtown Champaign and Illinois Terminal in 2018.

Opportunities1. Narrower travel lanes can slow vehicle traffic.2. Provides a direct and complete bike lane connection

between the existing KRT terminus, Weaver Park, Downtown Urbana and beyond.

FIGURE 6-2 Alternative #1 Alignment

E Main St

E University Ave

E Elm St

Dod

son

Dr

Dew

ey S

t

Brad

y Ln

Scot

tsw

ood

Dr

Enni

s Ln

Pfef

fer R

d

Abbe

y R

d

E Main St Spur

N B

erin

ger C

ir

Dod

son

Dr W

Coddington Cir

Ira S

t

Scotts

wood D

r

Kickapoo Rail Trail

Weaver Park





Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits

Urbana KRT Study Alternative 1

¯160 0 16080 Feet

FIGURE 6-3 UBMP rendering of Main Street west of Downtown Urbana

Urbana Green LoopOrchard St. 0.2Crystal Lake Park 0.2

Wright St. 0.1Champaign 0.1Douglass Park 0.3

U of I Campus 0.8McCullough St. 0.2Coler Ave. 0.3U of I Campus 0.8

ALT

ERN

ATE

OPT

ION

43


The Main Street bike lanes extend westward 1.9 miles to Springfield Avenue in Downtown Urbana. The 2016 UBMP recommends signing a Bike Route on Main Street from Downtown Urbana to the University of Illinois (see Figure 6-3). From there, the Main Street corridor continues as White Street in Champaign, and the Multimodal Corridor Enhancement (MCORE) Project will install bike lanes on White Street to Downtown Champaign and Illinois Terminal in 2018.

Opportunities1. Narrower travel lanes can slow vehicle traffic.2. Provides a direct and complete bike lane connection

between the existing KRT terminus, Weaver Park, Downtown Urbana and beyond.

FIGURE 6-3 UBMP rendering of Main Street west of Downtown Urbana

Urbana Green LoopOrchard St. 0.2Crystal Lake Park 0.2

Wright St. 0.1Champaign 0.1Douglass Park 0.3

U of I Campus 0.8McCullough St. 0.2Coler Ave. 0.3U of I Campus 0.8

ALT

ERN

ATE

OPT

ION

3. Provides improvements to existing access to the KRT along land under City of Urbana jurisdiction. Main Street is owned by the City of Urbana for its entire length, although the land surrounding it east of Scottswood Drive is not within City limits.

4. Provides improved access for Interested but Concerned cyclists. The BLOS score and grade would improve from 3.22 (C) to 2.15 (B) if standard bike lanes are installed (see Chapter 3, “Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)”).

5. Strong public support (see Chapter 4, “Public Workshop #1”).

Constraints1. Pedestrians are not accommodated. All KRT users will

be on the road, which increases potential conflicts with vehicles. This is not the most family-friendly option.

2. Right-of-way acquisition and engineering to widen the road will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of many landowners. This is especially true if the road is widened enough to construct protected bike lanes instead of standard bike lanes.

3. The Main Street Spur area can be tricky to navigate for cyclists, and vehicles may not see KRT users, especially as they are leaving the trail to head west on Main Street.

TABLE 6-1 Alternative #1 Information

Location Termini Distance (miles) Treatment

Main Street Bike Lanes Extension

University Ave – Scottswood Dr 0.36 Bike Lanes

44


ALTERNATIVE #2: MAIN STREET SIDEPATHAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-4 shows the alignment of Alternative #2. No sidewalks exist on the north side of Main Street in East Urbana, and the sidewalk on the south side of Main Street ends at Dodson Drive. Therefore, this alternative widens the existing sidewalk to a sidepath from the east edge of Weaver Park (Bakers Lane) to Dodson Drive, and constructs a sidepath on the south side of Main Street from Dodson Drive to the KRT. This alternative is similar to Alternative #1 in terms of location, but provides an off-street facility directly between the KRT and Weaver Park.

Sidepath SuitabilityThe Sidepath Suitability score for the Main Street Sidepath is 6

under the post-build scenario. This score classifies the path as “most suitable” under the ranges listed at the beginning of Chapter 6, “Alternatives Analysis”.

Opportunities1. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path.2. Provides a direct and complete bikeway connection

between the existing KRT terminus, Weaver Park, and Downtown Urbana.

3. Railroad property easement or acquisition west of the Scottswood Drive corridor would not be necessary.

4. Strong public support (see Chapter 4, “Public Workshop #1” and “Public Workshop #2”).

5. The off-street path between the KRT and Weaver Park is family-friendly and accommodates Interested but Concerned cyclists by providing separation between KRT users and vehicles.


E Main St

E University Ave

E Elm St

Dod

son

Dr

Dew

ey S

t

Brad

y Ln

Scot

tsw

ood

Dr

Enni

s Ln

Pfef

fer R

d

Abbe

y R

d

E Main St SpurN

Ber

inge

r Cir

Dod

son

Dr W

Coddington Cir

Ira S

t

Scotts

wood D

r

Kickapoo Rail Trail

Weaver Park





Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯160 0 16080 Feet

45


6. The Sidepath Suitability score is 6, indicating that this area is “most suitable” for a sidepath.

Constraints1. Existing structure(s) within the right-of-way needed to

construct a sidepath would have to be removed which causes significant increases in cost.

2. Right-of-way acquisition and engineering to construct a sidepath will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of many landowners. Not all of the right-of-way is within City limits, either.

3. Sidepaths that cross multiple driveways are not as safe for KRT users as an off-street shared-use path, since the latter completely removes interaction between KRT users and vehicles.

4. Westbound KRT cyclists will need to transition from the sidepath to the Main Street bike lanes at Smith Road or before the sidepath ends on the west side of Weaver Park.



Main Street Sidepath University Ave – Bakers Ln 0.49 Shared-Use Path

(sidepath)

FIGURE 6-5 UBMP rendering of Main Street westbound at Dewey Street

FIGURE 6-6 UBMP rendering of Main Street eastbound at Dewey Street

46


ALTERNATIVE #3: SMITH ROAD VIA NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD (NSRR)Alignment DescriptionFigure 6-7 shows the alignment of Alternative #3. This alternative extends the KRT west along the property owned by CCFPD, and then the property owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) to Smith Road. CCFPD would have to request an easement (i.e. permission to install a trail) or acquire the parcel from NSRR to build a trail here. Additionally, this parcel extends approximately 865 feet west of Smith Road.

Finally, this alternative constructs a sidepath on Smith Road from the NSRR to Main Street and Weaver Park. Instead of a sidepath, bike lanes or a protected two-way cycle track could be constructed along Smith Road.

Sidepath SuitabilityThe Sidepath Suitability score for the Smith Road Sidepath is 8 under the post-build scenario. This score classifies the path as “somewhat suitable” under the ranges listed at the beginning of Chapter 6.

Opportunities1. Extends the KRT westward. If Norfolk Southern Railroad

agrees to an easement or property sale to allow a shared-use path to be built, it could lead to additional acquisition further west into Urbana-Champaign and/or discussions about future rails-with-trails concepts.

2. New all-way stop at Main Street and Smith Road improves safety for KRT users by stopping vehicles.

3. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path which increases pedestrian safety.


E Main St

E University Ave

Abbey Rd

N S

mith

Rd

Ira S

t

E Elm St

N B

erin

ger C

ir

Dod

son

Dr

Dew

ey S

t

Carrie Ave

Dodson D

r W

Brad

y Ln

Enni

s Ln

Scottswood D

r

Walter St

Pfef

fer R

d

Dod

son

Dr E

E Main St Spur

Artesia XingToni Ln

Coddington Cir

Greystone Ct

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail






Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯200 0 200100 Feet

47


4. Provides a safe bikeway connection between the existing KRT terminus and Weaver Park. The existing Main Street bike lanes connect cyclists from Weaver Park to Downtown Urbana.

5. Proximity from a trailhead at Weaver Park to the KRT is the best for Urbana Park District to be involved in a trail-based event.

6. Strong public support (see Chapter 4, “Public Involvement” and “Public Workshop #2”).

7. The off-street path between the KRT and Weaver Park is family-friendly and safely accommodates Interested but Concerned cyclists by providing no interaction between KRT users and vehicles on the rail-to-trail corridor, and potentially no separation between the two along Smith Road.

8. The Sidepath Suitability score is 8, indicating that Smith Road is “somewhat suitable” for a sidepath.

Constraints1. At its widest, the distance from the Smith Road east curb

to the east edge of the public right-of-way is 14 feet. This narrows closer to University Avenue, where a right turn lane exists. Exploration of accessing more land would be needed to construct a sidepath based on the recommended shared-use path clear zone width of 12-16’ (see Chapter 5, “Shared-Use Trails”).

2. Railroad property easement or acquisition west of the Scottswood Drive corridor is necessary. This will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of Norfolk Southern Railroad. This includes seeking funding for the preliminary engineering, design, and construction for this potential KRT section.

3. Right-of-way acquisition and engineering to construct a sidepath on Smith Road will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as discussions with nearby landowners.

FIGURE 6-8 Smith Road between Main Street and University Avenue

FIGURE 6-9 UBMP rendering of a KRT extension east of Smith Road

48





KRT/NSRR* to Smith Road Main St – Smith Rd 0.49 Shared-Use Path

(rail-to-trail)

Smith Road NSRR – Main St 0.06** Shared-Use Path (Sidepath)

Total 0.61**

*Access along the NSRR requires an easement or acquisition**Distance is approximate, as it depends on alignment

49


ALTERNATIVE #4: BAKERS LANE VIA NSRRAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-10 shows the alignment of Alternative #4. This alternative extends the KRT west along the property owned by CCFPD, and then the property owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) to the Bakers Lane corridor. CCFPD would have to seek an easement (i.e. permission to install a trail) or acquire the parcel from NSRR to build a trail here. Additionally, this parcel extends approximately 865 feet west of Smith Road.

This alternative constructs an off-street shared-use path along Bakers Lane extended from the NSRR to Main Street. Access through private properties will be determined through working with only willing landowners for fair market value.

Bakers Lane is undeveloped, tree-lined right-of-way owned by the City of Urbana along the Smith Road corridor between Main and Washington Streets. It also borders the east edge of Weaver Park, as well as the Prairie Campus’ Urbana Early Childhood School (UECS). This alternative constructs an off-street shared-use path that not only connects the KRT to Weaver Park, but also the unincorporated Scottswood subdivision that has almost no sidewalks (see Figure 2-18), the aforementioned Prairie Campus, and existing bike lanes on Washington Street.


E Main St

E University AveAbbey Rd

N S

mith

Rd

E Elm St

Ira S

t

Dod

son

Dr

N B

erin

ger C

ir

Dew

ey S

t

Brad

y Ln

Carrie

Ave

Dodson D

r W

Enni

s Ln

Scottswood D

r

Walter St

Pfef

fer R

d

E Main St Spur

Dod

son

Dr E

Artesia XingToni Ln

Coddington Cir

Greystone Ct

Dod

son

Dr E

Weaver Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail






Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯200 0 200100 Feet

50


Crosswalk AnalysisThe 2017 Champaign-Urbana Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Guidelines (aka Crosswalk Guidelines) were used to determine the appropriate treatments for trail users on Bakers Lane to cross Main Street. Main Street at Bakers Lane is three lanes with a striped median, carrying 6,300 vehicles per day, with a 35 mph speed limit. Based on that document’s pedestrian crossing treatment flowchart and criteria for crossing treatments at uncontrolled locations table, Crossing Type C is recommended for this location. This includes the installation of these features:

• Marked [continental] crosswalk,• Pedestrian crossing warning signs (W11-2) mounted on

the side of the roadway at the crossing, with diagonal down arrow placards (W16-7P),

• Standard advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) mounted in advance of the crossing,

• “State Law – Stop for Pedestrians” signs (R1-6) mounted on sign posts in the median,

• Install a median refuge island in the two-way center turn lane to shorten the pedestrian and bicycle crossing distance and increase the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists to approaching motorists.

Opportunities1. An enhanced trail crossing is allowed and recommended by

the Champaign-Urbana crosswalk guidelines for KRT users to cross Main Street at Bakers Lane.

2. Crosses Main Street at Weaver Park, making the availability of proposed primary trailhead features at Weaver Park obvious to KRT users.

3. Extends the KRT westward. If Norfolk Southern Railroad agrees to an easement or property sale to allow a shared-use path to be built, it could lead to additional acquisition further west into Urbana-Champaign and/or discussions about future rails-with-trails concepts.

FIGURE 6-11 UBMP rendering of a shared-use path on Bakers Lane north of Washington Street

4. KRT users avoid crossing Main Street further away from the all-way stop at Smith Road.

5. KRT users avoid using a sidepath on Main Street east of Weaver Park that crosses multiple residential driveways and streets, thus improving safety.

6. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path.7. Provides a pedestrian and bikeway connection between the

existing KRT terminus and Weaver Park. The existing Main Street bike lanes, sidepath, and sidewalks connect cyclists from Weaver Park to Downtown Urbana.

51


8. Provides a pedestrian and bikeway connection between Weaver Park, the unincorporated Scottswood subdivision, the Washington Street bike lanes, Urbana Early Childhood School (UECS), and Dr. Williams Elementary School. This is especially beneficial for residents of the Scottswood subdivision, where few sidewalks exist, they are ineligible for transportation improvements by the City of Urbana, and many households are low-income that rely on non-motorized forms of transportation. The existing Washington Street bike lanes will also connect cyclists to more Urbana neighborhoods and destinations.

9. Provides improvements to existing access to Weaver Park along land under City of Urbana jurisdiction. Bakers Lane is owned by the City of Urbana for its entire length. Trail alignment along Bakers Lane creates better connectivity to areas, bikeways, and trails to the south. This alternative also opens use of Bakers Lane to bicyclists and pedestrians.

10. Proximity from a trailhead at Weaver Park to the KRT is the best for Urbana Park District to be involved in a trail-based event.

11. Public support exists for this alternative (see Chapter 4, “Public Involvement”).

12. The off-street path between the KRT and Weaver Park is family-friendly and accommodates Interested but Concerned cyclists by providing no interaction between KRT users and vehicles, except for crossing Main Street.

13. This project can be built in phases, with the section between the existing KRT terminus and Weaver Park having first priority, and the remaining Bakers Lane section south to Washington Street having second priority. The responsibility is split between all three project agencies: CCFPD, the Urbana Park District, and the City of Urbana.

Constraints1. Existing structure(s) on private property north of Main

Street might have to be removed to construct a shared-use path.

2. Exploration of accessing more land, discussions with nearby landowners, and engineering to construct a shared-use path would take a significant amount of time and money.

3. Potential concerns about neighbors bordering Bakers Lane not respecting the KRT property and users.

4. Railroad property easement or acquisition west of the Scottswood Drive corridor is necessary. This will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of Norfolk Southern Railroad. This includes seeking funding for the preliminary engineering, design, and construction for this potential KRT section.

FIGURE 6-12 Bakers Lane corridor looking south from University Avenue

52




KRT/NSRR* to Bakers Lane Main St – Bakers Ln 0.46 Shared-Use Path (rail-

to-trail)

Bakers Lane extended* NSRR – Main St 0.06** Shared-Use Path (off-street)

Bakers Lane Main St – Washington St 0.49 Shared-Use Path (off-

street)

Total 1.01**

*Access along the NSRR and Bakers Lane extended requires an easement or acquisition**Distance is approximate, as it depends on alignment

53


ALTERNATIVE #5: PFEFFER ROAD EXTENDED (UCSD DRIVEWAY) TO MAIN STREETAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-13 shows the alignment of Alternative #5. This alternative constructs an off-street shared-use path from the KRT to the Pfeffer Road/Main Street intersection along the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District (UCSD) gravel driveway at 2912 East Main Street. There is a fenced UCSD substation here, but the rest of the property is currently accessible from the north and south.

From there, this alternative constructs a sidepath on the south side

of Main Street to Bakers Lane. No sidewalks exist on the north side of Main Street in East Urbana, and the sidewalk on the south side of Main Street ends at Dodson Drive. Therefore, this alternative widens the existing sidewalk to a sidepath from the east edge of Weaver Park (Bakers Lane) to Dodson Drive, and constructs a sidepath on the south side of Main Street from Dodson Drive to Pfeffer Road. This alternative is similar to Alternative #2 in terms of location, but meets the KRT just east of its current terminus.

Sidepath SuitabilityThe Sidepath Suitability score for the Main Street Sidepath is 6 under the post-build scenario. This score classifies the path as “most suitable” under the ranges listed at the beginning of Chapter 6.


E Main St

E University Ave

E Elm St

Dod

son

Dr

Dew

ey S

t

Brad

y Ln

Scot

tsw

ood

Dr

Enni

s Ln

Pfef

fer R

d

Abbe

y R

d

E Main St SpurN

Ber

inge

r Cir

Dod

son

Dr W

Coddington Cir Rutherford Dr

Ira S

t

Scotts

wood D

r

Kickapoo Rail Trail

Weaver Park





Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯160 0 16080 Feet

54


Opportunities1. Avoids the constricted Main Street Spur and the Main

Street Spur/University Avenue intersection. Moves the left turn for westbound KRT cyclists from the Main Street Spur to Pfeffer Road.

2. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path.3. Provides a bikeway connection between the KRT and

Weaver Park. The existing Main Street bike lanes connect cyclists from Weaver Park to Downtown Urbana.

4. Provides better connectivity to Pfeffer Road. This is only truly realized by pairing this alternative with Alternative #7, which would also improve connectivity to other parts of East and South Urbana.

5. Public support exists for the use of the UCSD driveway and section west of the Main Street Spur (see Chapter 4, “Public Workshop #1”).


7. The off-street path between the KRT and Weaver Park is family-friendly and accommodates Interested but Concerned cyclists by providing separation between KRT users and vehicles.

8. The Sidepath Suitablity score is 6, indicating that this area is “most suitable” for a sidepath.

Constraints1. A shared-use path longer than that proposed in Alternative

#2 will cost more to construct.

2. Existing structure(s) within the right-of-way needed to construct a sidepath on Main Street would have to be removed.

3. KRT users continuing to the current terminus at the Main Street Spur will have no off-street facility to continue using. These users may still use the Main Street Spur as a shortcut to access Main Street, even if no facilities are present.

4. Requires an easement from the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District (UCSD) to construct a trail on their property at 2912 East Main Street (i.e Pfeffer Road extended).

5. Right-of-way acquisition and engineering to construct a sidepath on Main Street will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of many landowners. Not all of the right-of-way is within City limits, either.


7. The Main Street/Pfeffer Road intersection currently has no stop control. A marked trail crossing and stop control would be recommended for this alternative.


9. Without signage, this alignment is not as intuitive to KRT users at the intersection of the KRT and UCSD driveway.

FIGURE 6-14 UCSD gravel driveway looking south towards Pfeffer Road

55


2. Existing structure(s) within the right-of-way needed to construct a sidepath on Main Street would have to be removed.

3. KRT users continuing to the current terminus at the Main Street Spur will have no off-street facility to continue using. These users may still use the Main Street Spur as a shortcut to access Main Street, even if no facilities are present.

4. Requires an easement from the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District (UCSD) to construct a trail on their property at 2912 East Main Street (i.e Pfeffer Road extended).

5. Right-of-way acquisition and engineering to construct a sidepath on Main Street will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of many landowners. Not all of the right-of-way is within City limits, either.





FIGURE 6-14 UCSD gravel driveway looking south towards Pfeffer Road



Pfeffer Road extended (UCSD driveway)* KRT – Main St 0.07 Shared-Use Path (off-

street)

Main Street Pfeffer Rd – Main St Spur 0.13 Shared-Use Path

(sidepath)

Main Street Main St Spur – Bakers Ln 0.38 Shared-Use Path

(sidepath)

Total 0.58

*Access through UCSD property requires an easement

56


ALTERNATIVE #6: INDUSTRIAL CIRCLE EXTENDEDAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-15 shows the alignment of Alternative #6. This alternative constructs an off-street shared-use path from the KRT to Industrial Circle in the East Urbana Industrial Park. The alignment borders the United States Postal Service (USPS) employee parking lot on the east, and an undeveloped USPS parcel on the west. An easement would be required to build a trail here. Industrial Circle has a sidewalk on its east side, and connects to Tatman Court.

Opportunities1. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path.2. Railroad property easement or acquisition west of the

Scottswood Drive corridor would not be necessary.

3. The off-street path is family-friendly and accommodates Interested but Concerned cyclists by providing no interaction between KRT users and vehicles.

Constraints1. KRT users continuing to the current terminus at the Main

Street Spur will have no off-street facility to continue using. These users may still use the Main Street Spur as a shortcut to access Main Street, even if no facilities are present.

2. Requires an easement from the United States Postal Service (USPS) to construct a trail through their property, and USPS has to be willing to provide this. If an easement is granted, engineering and construction to construct this shared-use path may take a significant amount of time and money.


E University Ave

Tatman Ct

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Pfef

fer R

d

Tatman Dr

E Main St

Indu

stria

l Cir

E M

ain

St S

pur

Kickapoo Rail Trail






Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯120 0 12060 Feet

FIGURE 6-16 Industrial Circle looking north

FIGURE 6-17 Looking south towards Industrial Circle from south of the KRT tree line

57





2. Requires an easement from the United States Postal Service (USPS) to construct a trail through their property, and USPS has to be willing to provide this. If an easement is granted, engineering and construction to construct this shared-use path may take a significant amount of time and money.

FIGURE 6-16 Industrial Circle looking north

FIGURE 6-17 Looking south towards Industrial Circle from south of the KRT tree line

3. The most appropriate lead agency to pursue this alternative is unclear. The lead agency will have to cover development costs if USPS is unwilling or unable.

4. There are grade changes in the tree and vegetation line between the KRT and the USPS properties that will increase the cost of building a KRT trail spur to Industrial Circle.

5. This alternative connects to the East Urbana Industrial Park, and the streets here are likely to have truck and delivery traffic that Interested but Concerned cyclists will not want to interact with.

6. This alternative does not connect to existing or proposed bikeways throughout the rest of Urbana.

7. This alternative does not connect to Weaver Park.8. This alternative is only worthwhile if trailhead features

are provided along Industrial Circle. No long-term public parking lot currently exists in this area. Vehicle parking is needed for a primary trailhead, especially since this area does not connect to other bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It is more likely that this location could serve as a secondary trailhead, but not the primary trailhead that is needed at the west end of the KRT. If a trailhead cannot be provided here, this alternative must be paired with Alternatives #5, 7, and 8 to access these features further west in Urbana.

9. Without signage, this alignment is not as intuitive to KRT users at the intersection of the KRT and Industrial Circle extended. It is also not an efficient or intuitive route for KRT users approaching the KRT from points west in Urbana.



Industrial Circle extended* KRT – Industrial Cir 0.08** Shared-Use Path (off-

street)

*Access requires an easement or acquisition**Distance is approximate, as it depends on alignment

58


ALTERNATIVE #7: PFEFFER ROAD & WASHINGTON STREETAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-18 shows the alignment of Alternative #7. This alternative constructs an off-street shared-use path from the KRT to the Pfeffer Road/Main Street intersection along the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District (UCSD) gravel driveway at 2912 East Main Street. There is a fenced UCSD substation here, but the rest of the property is currently accessible from the north and south.

From there, this alternative constructs sidepaths on Pfeffer Road and Washington Street westward to where bike lanes exist at Bakers Lane/Smith Road. Sidewalks are currently missing on the north half of Pfeffer Road and at its intersection with Washington Street (see Figure 2-18). Instead of sidepaths, bike lanes could be constructed along Pfeffer Road and this section of Washington

Street, although both roads would have to be widened to accommodate bike lanes.

Sidepath SuitabilityThe Sidepath Suitability score under the post-build scenario for the west side of Pfeffer Road is 6, and east side of Pfeffer Road is 4. These paths are deemed “most suitable” under the ranges listed at the beginning of Chapter 6.

The Sidepath Suitability score under the post-build scenario for the north side of Washington Street is 10, and the south side of Washington Street is 4. The south side is “most suitable” for a sidepath with only one road crossing. However, the north side is “least suitable” for a sidepath based on its 28 driveways and 4 road crossings. Since bike lanes exist on Washington Street east and west of this section, it is recommended to pursue road reconstruction that includes bike lanes instead of installing a sidepath (see Figure 6-20).


E Main St

E Washington St

Dod

son

Dr

Pfef

fer R

d

Scot

tsw

ood

Dr

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Brad

y Ln

E Illinois St

Gle

nn D

r E High St

Mac

Arth

ur D

r

E Elm St

Sunn

y Ln E California Ave

Sunr

ise

Dr

Tatman Ct

Dew

ey S

t

Enni

s Ln

E Nevada St

E Green St

E Main St Spur

E High St

Weaver Park

Prairie Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail





Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯300 0 300150 Feet

59



Street Spur/University Avenue intersection. Moves the left turn for westbound KRT cyclists from the Main Street Spur to Pfeffer Road.

2. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path.3. Improves connectivity to other parts of East and South

Urbana.4. Provides a pedestrian and bikeway connection between

the KRT, the Washington Street bike lanes, Urbana Early Childhood School (UECS), and Dr. Williams Elementary School. The existing Washington Street bike lanes will also connect cyclists to more Urbana neighborhoods and destinations.

5. Provides improved access for Interested but Concerned cyclists. On Pfeffer Road, the BLOS score and grade would improve from 2.52 (C) to 2.49 (B) if standard bike lanes are installed. On Washington Street, the BLOS score and grade would improve from 3.22 (C) to 2.14 (B) if standard bike lanes are installed (see Chapter 3, “Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)”).

6. Provides improvements to existing access to the KRT along land under City of Urbana jurisdiction. Pfeffer Road and Washington Street are owned by the City of Urbana.

7. Public support exists for this alternative (see Chapter 4, “Public Workshop #1”).


9. The off-street path and sidepaths are family-friendly and accommodate Interested but Concerned cyclists by providing separation between KRT users and vehicles.

10. The Sidepath Suitability scores indicate that either side of Pfeffer Road is “most suitable” for a sidepath. It also indicates that the south side of Washington Street is “most suitable” for a sidepath.



2. Requires an easement from the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District (UCSD) to construct a trail on their property at 2912 East Main Street (i.e. Pfeffer Road extended).

3. Right-of-way acquisition and engineering to construct a sidepath and/or widen the road to install bike lanes on Pfeffer Road and/or Washington Street will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of many landowners. This is especially true if the road is widened enough to construct protected bike lanes instead of standard bike lanes. Regardless of treatment, the Washington Street vehicle and pedestrian bridges west of MacArthur Drive will have to be reconstructed to add bicycle and pedestrian improvements. FIGURE 6-19 UBMP rendering of Pfeffer Road north of

Washington Street

Urbana Green LoopRace St. 0.2Blair Park 0.4


Urbana Green LoopDorner Dr. 0.1Memorial Stadium 0.8

Main St. 0.4Kickapoo Rail Trail 0.5


ALT

ERN

ATE

OPT

ION


ALT

ERN

ATE

OPT

ION

ALT

ERN

ATE

OPT

ION

60




6. This alternative does not provide a direct nor intuitive bikeway connection between the KRT, Weaver Park, and Downtown Urbana. The Weaver Park primary trailhead will be on the north side of the park near Main Street, approximately ½ mile away from Washington Street.

7. Westbound KRT cyclists will need to transition from a proposed sidepath to existing bike lanes on Washington Street.


FIGURE 6-20 UBMP rendering of Washington Street west of MacArthur Drive



Pfeffer Road extended (UCSD driveway) KRT – Main St 0.07 Shared-Use Path (off-

street)

Pfeffer Road Main St – Washington St 0.43 Bike Lanes or Shared-

Use Path (sidepath)

Washington Street Pfeffer Rd – Bakers Ln 0.50 Bike Lanes or Shared-Use Path (sidepath)

Total 1.01

61


ALTERNATIVE #8: TATMAN COURT EXTENDED VIA HIGH CROSS ROADAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-21 shows the alignment of Alternative #8. This alternative constructs a sidepath on the west side of High Cross Road (IL 130) from the KRT to Tatman Court. A sidepath currently exists on the west side of High Cross Road 1.2 miles south of Tatman Court, and the City of Urbana’s Bicycle Master Plan recommends extending it north to the KRT.

This alternative constructs a sidepath on Tatman Court, past its west terminus to Pfeffer Road. The alignment borders two parcels

held by developer Paul Tatman. An easement would be required to build a trail here. From there, without any existing sidewalks or bikeways on Pfeffer Road, recommendations from Alternatives #5 and 7 would also have to be followed to safely access Weaver Park and East Urbana.

Sidepath SuitabilityThe Sidepath Suitability score under the post-build scenario for the west side of High Cross Road is 3, and either side of Tatman Court is 4. These paths are deemed “most suitable” under the ranges listed at the beginning of Chapter 6.


E University Ave

Pfef

fer R

d

Tatman Dr

S H

igh

Cro

ss R

d

Tatman Ct

E Main St

E Main St Spur

Indu

stria

l Cir

Kickapoo Rail Trail






Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯160 0 16080 Feet

62



Street Spur/University Avenue intersection. Moves the left turn for westbound KRT cyclists from the Main Street Spur to High Cross Road.

2. If a sidepath on High Cross Road is extended south to the existing sidepath, it will improve connectivity to other parts of East and South Urbana.

3. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path.4. Public support exists for this alternative (see Chapter 4,

“Public Workshop #1”).5. Railroad property easement or acquisition west of the

Scottswood Drive corridor would not be necessary.6. The off-street path and sidepaths are family-friendly

and accommodate Interested but Concerned cyclists by providing no interaction between KRT users and vehicles.

7. The Sidepath Suitablity scores are 3 and 4, indicating that this area is “most suitable” for sidepaths.



2. Requires an easement from the developer to construct a trail through their property between Tatman Court and Pfeffer Road, and the developer has to be willing to provide this. If an easement is granted, engineering and construction to construct these shared-use paths may take a significant amount of time and money.

3. The most appropriate lead agency to pursue this alternative is unclear. The lead agency will have to cover development costs if the developer is unwilling or unable.

FIGURE 6-22 Tatman Court looking west

4. There are grade changes in the tree and vegetation line near Pfeffer Road that will increase the cost of building a shared-use path on Tatman Court extended.

5. This alternative connects to the East Urbana Industrial Park, and the streets here are likely to have truck and delivery traffic that Interested but Concerned cyclists will not want to interact with.

6. This alternative does not connect to a sidewalk at Pfeffer Road.

7. This alternative does not connect to existing bikeways throughout the rest of Urbana.

8. This alternative does not connect to Weaver Park.9. This alternative is more worthwhile to pursue if trailhead

features are provided in the area. It is more likely that this location could serve as a secondary trailhead, but not the primary trailhead that is needed at the west end of the KRT. If a trailhead cannot be provided here, this alternative must be paired with Alternatives #5 and 7 to access these features further west in Urbana.

63


10. Without signage, this alignment is not as intuitive to KRT users at the intersection of the KRT and High Cross Road. It is also not an efficient or intuitive route for KRT users approaching the KRT from points west in Urbana.



High Cross Road KRT – Tatman Ct 0.18 Shared-Use Path (sidepath)

Tatman Court High Cross Rd – W terminus 0.16 Shared-Use path

(sidepath)

Tatman Court extended* Tatman Ct – Pfeffer Rd 0.08** Shared-Use Path (off-

street)

Total 0.43**

*Access requires an easement or acquisition**Distance is approximate, as it depends on alignment

64


ALTERNATIVE #9: ART BARTELL ROAD EXTENDED VIA NSRRAlignment DescriptionFigure 6-23 shows the alignment of Alternative #9. This alternative extends the KRT west along the property owned by CCFPD, and then the property owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) to Art Bartell Road extended. CCFPD would have to request an easement or acquire the two parcels from NSRR to build a trail here.

This alternative constructs an off-street shared-use path on Art Bartell Road extended from the NSRR to Main Street. The alignment traverses the Urbana Champaign Friends Meeting (aka Quakers) property at 1904 East Main Street, so an easement from them would also have to be requested.

Art Bartell Road traverses south then west through Champaign County property to Lierman Avenue. While Lierman Avenue has a sidepath and sidewalk, no sidewalks or bikeways exist on Art Bartell Road.

Opportunities1. Extends the KRT westward. If Norfolk Southern Railroad

agrees to an easement or property sale to allow a shared-use path to be built, it could lead to additional acquisition further west into Urbana-Champaign and/or discussions about future rails-with-trails concepts.

2. KRT users avoid using a sidepath on Main Street that crosses multiple residential driveways and streets, thus improving safety.

3. Pedestrians are accommodated via an off-street path.


E Main St

Butzow Dr

Abbey Rd

Ira S

t

Dod

son

Dr

Slayback St

Brad

y Ln

N S

mith

Rd

N B

erin

ger C

ir

Dod

son

Dr W

Pfef

fer R

d

Art B

arte

ll R

d

Dew

ey S

t

E University Ave

Scot

tsw

ood

Dr

Toni Ln Dod

son

Dr E

E Elm St

Car

rie A

ve

Slayback Rd

Old US 150

Wilson RdEn

nis

Ln

Glenn D

r

McG

ee C

ir

Michelle Ln

E High St

Jeffrey Ln

Pettys Dr

Weaver Park

Kickapoo Rail Trail

Canaday Park






Sharrows

Railroads

Roads

Study Area

Parks & Open Space

Urbana City Limits


¯340 0 340170 Feet

65


4. Provides a bikeway connection between the existing KRT terminus and Downtown Urbana via the existing Main Street bike lanes.


Constraints1. A shared-use path longer than those proposed in

Alternatives #3 and 4 will cost more to construct.2. No pedestrian or bicycle facilities exist on Art Bartell

Road south of Main Street to safely connect KRT users to Champaign County facilities, Prairie Park, and Brookens Gym.

3. Railroad property easement or acquisition west of the Scottswood Drive corridor is necessary. This is especially difficult due to an active railroad existing west of Smith Road. This will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of Norfolk Southern Railroad. This includes seeking funding for the preliminary engineering, design, and construction for this potential KRT section.

4. Exploration of accessing more land, discussions with nearby landowners, and engineering to construct a shared-use path would take a significant amount of time and money.

5. This alternative does not directly connect to Weaver Park. Since it bypasses Weaver Park, there is no connection to proposed primary trailhead features on the west side of the KRT.

FIGURE 6-24 View of NSRR west of Smith Road

66




KRT/NSRR* to Smith Road Main St – Smith Rd 0.55 Shared-Use Path (rail-

to-trail)

NSRR to Art Bartell Road extended*

Smith Rd – Art Bartell Rd 0.32 Shared-Use Path (rail-

to-trail)

Art Bartell Road extended* NSRR – Main St 0.07** Shared-Use Path (off-

street)

Total 0.94**

*Access along the NSRR and Art Bartell Road extended requires easements or acquisition**Distance is approximate, as it depends on alignment

67


SELECTED COMPARISONSOpportunities & ConstraintsTable 6-10 shows the number of opportunities and constraints for each alternative, as well as how many more opportunities or constraints each alternative had. While the quantity of opportunities and constraints is not the sole factor in deciding the preferred alternative, it does highlight which alternatives clearly offer more benefits than drawbacks for investment of agency resources. Alternative #4 (Bakers Lane via NSRR) has nine more opportunities than constraints.

GoalsTable 6-11 shows whether each alternative meets the three principal goals of this study outlined in Chapter 1, and also listed below.

Goal #1: Connect the KRT to Weaver Park.

Goal #2: Develop a primary trailhead at Weaver Park (i.e. does this alternative make Weaver Park a desirable trailhead location).

Goal #3: Improve East Urbana access.

TABLE 6-10 Comparison of Opportunities & Constraints

Alternative Opportunities Constraints Difference

1: Main Street Bike Lanes 5 3 +2 opportunities

2: Main Street Sidepath 6 4 +2 opportunities

3: Smith Road via NSRR 8 4 +4 opportunities

4: Bakers Lane via NSRR 13 4 +9 opportunities

5: Pfeffer Road to Main St. 8 9 +1 constraints

6: Industrial Circle extended 3 9 +6 constraints

7: Pfeffer Road & Washington St. 10 8 +2 opportunities

8: Tatman Court via High Cross Rd. 7 10 +3 constraints

9: Art Bartell Road via NSRR 5 5 0

68


TABLE 6-11 Comparison of Alternatives by Goals

Alternative Goal #1 Goal #2 Goal #3

1: Main Street Bike Lanes Yes for bicyclists, No for pedestrians Yes Yes for bicyclists,

No for pedestrians

2: Main Street Sidepath Yes Yes Yes

3: Smith Road via NSRR Yes Yes Yes

4: Bakers Lane via NSRR Yes Yes Yes

5: Pfeffer Road to Main St. Yes Yes Yes

6: Industrial Circle extended No No No

7: Pfeffer Road & Washington St. No No Yes

8: Tatman Court via High Cross Rd. No No No

9: Art Bartell Road via NSRR No No Yes

69

WEAVER PARK & EAST URBANA KICKAPOO RAIL TRAIL CONNECTIVITY STUDY | Conclusion

7

RECENT IMPROVEMENTS In Fall 2017, CCFPD opened the first phase of the Kickapoo Rail Trail from Urbana to St. Joseph. Shortly afterwards, the City of Urbana extended the sharrows on Main Street to the KRT, which is appropriate for a road with a BLOS grade of C and BLTS scores between 1 (low stress) and 2 (medium stress).

In 2018, the Urbana Park District installed permanent vehicle parking on the northwest side of Weaver Park to begin creating a primary KRT trailhead at Weaver Park. Cyclists driving with their bikes can now park at Weaver Park and use Main Street to access the KRT western terminus, where there is currently no vehicle parking. The Urbana Park District should continue developing trailhead amenities at Weaver Park.

NEXT STEPSCCRPC is developing a citywide bicycle wayfinding plan for the City of Urbana that is expected to be completed in 2018. Once the plan and its sign designs are approved, bikeway signage should be installed between Weaver Park and the KRT. Sign designs are being developed for on-street bikeways (e.g. Main Street) and off-street trails (e.g. the Kickapoo Rail Trail). All signage that is installed should include the wayfinding elements of destinations, direction, distance, and time. The City of Urbana should install appropriate bikeway signage on Main Street directing cyclists between the KRT and Weaver Park as funds are available, potentially as early as 2019.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of several alternatives presented in this study are contingent on further analysis, as well as cooperation with the Norfolk Southern Railroad company and other landowners. An “Urbana KRT Connectivity Partnership” consisting of at least the Urbana Park District, Champaign County Forest Preserve District, and City of Urbana should continue to meet and work together beyond the completion of this study to implement an appropriate path to connect the KRT and Weaver Park.

FIGURE 7-1 KRT at sunset

APPENDIX APUBLIC WORKSHOP #1 RESULTS REPORT

Public Workshop #1 Results Report

October 31, 2017

Urbana KRT Study Public Workshop #1 Results

2

Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Section 2: Comment Card Responses ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Section 3: Additional Comments.................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Section 4: Full Comment Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Section 5: Public Comment Maps ................................................................................................................................................................................. 29


3

Section 1: Introduction Project Background In the Summer of 2017, the Urbana Park District, Champaign County Forest Preserve District (CCFPD), and the City of Urbana contracted with the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to develop recommendations for connecting Weaver Park and East Urbana to the Kickapoo Rail Trail (KRT). The Kickapoo Rail Trail between Main Street in Urbana and Main Street in St. Joseph opened on August 25, 2017.

Public Workshop #1 On Thursday, September 7, 2017, staff from all four agencies hosted a joint public workshop to solicit public input on connecting the aforementioned areas. The workshop was open house style, held in the Champaign County Highway Department Conference Room at 1605 E. Main St. in Urbana.

Each attendee was given a comment card to complete. Questions #1-4 were asked by CCRPC on behalf of all project agencies, Questions #5-6 were asked by CCFPD, and Question #7 was asked by the Urbana Park District.

Exhibit boards regarding existing conditions in the study area were set up around the room. Attendees were invited to provide comments on these exhibit boards.

Finally, attendees were asked to draw their desired connections from Urbana to the KRT using a map. Large aerial maps and individual letter-sized maps were provided for the convenience of attendees.

35 people attended the workshop, and 25 people completed a comment card. One comment was also received via the Facebook event page, from a person who could not attend the workshop.

The following presents the results of this input.


4

Section 2: Comment Card Responses Question #1: What issues are you particularly concerned about or wish to see addressed? Listed below are the response subjects for Comment Card Question #1. For the complete list of responses, please see the table below.


5

Question #1 locations referenced: Listed below are the locations mentioned more than once. For the complete list of locations, please see the table below.


6

Comment Card Question #1: What issues are you particularly concerned about or wish to see addressed?

ID Comment Comment Location Comment Subject

1 Access from west of 130 to KRT, from both Weaver and Perkins Park.

IL 130, Weaver Park, Perkins Road Park Site Western Access, Weaver Park Access, Northern Access, Perkins Park Access

2 Accessibility to the trail for bikers who are uncomfortable in high-stress environments.

none specified Less Confident Bicyclist Access

3 Cars turning south off 150 and crossing the KRT. Rail trail specific signs on 150.

US 150, University Ave Crossings, Safety, Intersection Safety, Turning Vehicles, Signage

4

Coherent access to and from the trail. Urbana has come a long way, but as a frequent cyclist (bike commuting as well as recreational), I find the "gaps" scary to navigate.

none specified Gaps, Connectivity, Confident Bicyclist Access

5 Connection into downtown Urbana is important. Better access from the west to the trailhead.

Downtown Urbana, Urbana Connectivity, Downtown Urbana Access, Western Access

6 Connections to Weaver Park and then on to points west.

Weaver Park, Urbana Connectivity, Weaver Park Access, Western Access

7

Connectivity for insecure cyclists. Making University Avenue safe for peds and cyclists from north side of town to Smith Road access. There is room for bike paths.

University Ave, Smith Rd, North Urbana Connectivity, Less Confident Bicyclist Access, Pedestrians, Safety, Northern Access, Bikeways

8

Connectivity to Washington. Too much emphasis on Weaver Park, not enough on in-town connectivity with development of bike infrastructure on High Cross and Windsor Road.

Washington St, IL 130, Windsor Rd Connectivity, Urbana Access, Southern Access

9 Developing trailheads and rest stops to be inviting and useful.

none specified Trailheads, Rest Stops, Amenities

10 Directional signage. Safe crossings. none specified Wayfinding, Signage, Crossings, Safety, Intersection Safety


7


11 Easy and safe access to the trailhead. Plantings that can shade parts of the area.

none specified Access, Ease, Safety, Trailheads, Nature, Shade

12 Getting from Weaver to KRT. Getting from KRT to downtown Urbana.

Weaver Park, Downtown Urbana Connectivity, Weaver Park Access, Downtown Urbana Access

13 I would like to see benches installed along the path. none specified Benches

14

Ideally, I would like to see this trail connect to campus and beyond. I've heard people talking about bike/pedestrian from Champaign to Mahomet, and beyond (the Forest Preserve).

University of Illinois, Champaign, Mahomet, Lake of the Woods

Connectivity, Western Access, University of Illinois Access, Bicyclists, Pedestrians

15 Improving parking and access to Weaver Park while preserving the natural areas and wetland habitat.

Weaver Park Parking, Weaver Park Access, Conservation, Nature

16 Lighting on Main. Traffic light and pedestrian light at Weaver Park and Smith Rd.

Main St, Weaver Park, Main/Smith Lighting, Traffic Signals, Pedestrian Signals, Crossings, Safety, Intersection Safety

17 Safe access from Urbana/Weaver Park, mostly. Bike lanes on Main St. are great, but awkward/dangerous riding west from KRT to Weaver Park.

Weaver Park, Urbana, Main St Safety, Urbana Access, Weaver Park Access

18 Safe connection between Weaver Park and KRT. Wayfinding, signage.

Weaver Park Safety, Connectivity, Wayfinding, Signage, Weaver Park Access

19 Safe, well-defined access to KRT with trailhead with basic amenities.

none specified Safety, Access, Trailheads, Amenities

20 Safety for all around 24/7. none specified Safety

21

Smart development of the trailhead which adds an amenity to both the Park District and the City in general. Safe route to get to Weaver Park and then along E Main (?) into downtown.

Weaver Park, Main St, Downtown Urbana Trailheads, Safety, Amenities, Weaver Park Access, Downtown Urbana Access


8


22

To make the trail truly family friendly and family accessible requires a paved sidepath from Weaver Park to the trailhead. It would be quite stressful to try to negotiate that stretch "on-road" with small children.

Weaver Park, Urbana Family Friendly, Weaver Park Access, Sidepath, Safety, Children

23 Trailhead. Extending the path. none specified Trailheads, Western Access, Trail Extension

24 Urbana Main St intersection safety. Additional shade and noise quieting. Yield signs instead of stops.

Main St Crossings, Safety, Intersection Safety, Shade, Noise Reduction, Yield Signs

25 Where to park a car so I can use the trail. none specified Parking


9

Question #2: Why are you interested in this project? Check all that apply. Key Findings: The highest number of respondents want to use the Kickapoo Rail Trail for bicycling and for recreation.

1

12

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Transportation

Recreation

Exercise

I want to walk on the KRT for...

1

6

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Transportation

Recreation

Exercise

I want to run on the KRT for...

6

20

17

0 5 10 15 20 25

Transportation

Recreation

Exercise

I want to bike on the KRT for...

2

0

1

0 1 2 3 4 5

Bike

Run

Walk

I have a young child(ren) I want to take on the KRT to...


10

ID Comment Card Question #2: Other responses 1 Great to see others using the trail. 2 I serve CCFPD as a volunteer. 3 I want to be buried on KRT for a donation. 4 Would like to see this trail connected to the U of I campus.

Question #3: How did you hear about this meeting? Check all that apply. Key Finding: Most people heard about this workshop via email, word of mouth, Facebook, and online.

Specific “Other” Comments:

• Spouse • Co-workers

18

8

4 4 3 32 1

0 002468

101214161820

How did you hear about this meeting?


11

Question #4a: What city do you call home? Key Finding: Most participants live in Urbana.

Question #4b: Are you male or female? (optional) Key Finding: Most survey respondents were men.

17

4

21 1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Urbana Savoy Champaign Mahomet Mayview St. Joseph

What city do you call home?

Female, 8, 32%

Male, 17, 68%

Are you male or female?


12

Question #4c: How old are you? (optional) Key Finding: Most participants were between 55 and 74 years old.

Question #5a: Have you utilized the Kickapoo Rail Trail? Key Finding: More than half of respondents have already visited the Kickapoo Rail Trail.

01

2 2 2

8 8

0 00123456789

Tally

Age Group

How old are you?

Yes, 12, 60%

No, 8, 40%

Have you utilized the Kickapoo Rail Trail?


13

Question #5b: If you have utilized the Kickapoo Rail Trail, please share your initial thoughts or observations you had from your trail visit. Listed below are the response subjects for Comment Card Question #5. For the complete list of responses, please see the table below.


14

Question #5b locations referenced:


15

Comment Card Question #5b: If you have utilized the Kickapoo Rail Trail, please share your initial thoughts or observations you had from your trail visit.


1

Beautiful trail. I love the bridges and the feel of the crushed rock. I noticed almost immediately the difference in running on the pavement and the gravel.

Kickapoo Rail Trail Trail surface, Views

2 Concerned about traffic crossing the trail turning off 150.

US 150 Crossings, Safety, Intersection Safety

3 Fresh air. Sight seeing. Feeding wild birds. Kickapoo Rail Trail Air, Views, Nature

4

I suggest the trail utilize the bridge over Vine St. and follow the Boneyard Creek as much as possible. And stay in the floodplain so as to displace the fewest buildings.

Vine St railroad bridge, Boneyard Creek, Floodplain

Bridge, Crossings, Waterways, Trail Extension, Westward Access, Building Preservation

5 I want to!! Kickapoo Rail Trail Want to Use

6 It was a smooth ride! Well-packed, and not too soft even for road tires.

Kickapoo Rail Trail Trail Surface

7 It's great! The westbound connection on Main St is a bad intersection. Benches are needed along the trail.

US 150/Main, Kickapoo Rail Trail Crossings, Safety, Intersection Safety, Benches

8 It's surprisingly "age-friendly" – all ages, multiuse, flat, safe, etc.

Kickapoo Rail Trail Age Friendly, Bicyclists, Pedestrians, Flat, Safety

9 I've not run or biked the trail but I have observed a lot of use when driving past going to St. Joseph.

St Joseph High Use


16


10

Smooth surface now - concerned about long term maintenance. Lack of trees on north side exposes you to lights and noise (note the difference when trees exist). Makes a great return from St. Joseph on a long ride. Needs a better access for general user at Main via Weaver Park but that's stating the obvious.

Kickapoo Rail Trail, Weaver Park Trail Surface, Maintenance, Lack of Trees, Lights, Noise, Less Confident Bicyclist Access, Weaver Park Access

11 The areas with trees were nice. It was also good to be elevated. I wonder how the trail surface will be in the rain. I do appreciate that it is not paved though.

Kickapoo Rail Trail Trees, Elevation, Trail Surface, Weather

12 Tonight will be my first time. Kickapoo Rail Trail Want to Use

13 Very nice. The trail surface seems to be improving with use. I like the flora/fauna interpretive displays.

Kickapoo Rail Trail Trail Surface, Nature, Interpretive Displays

14

Wonderful dark sky location. Fantastic view of Mt. Olive cemetery. Severely deficient Urbana trailhead. Lack of consideration of equitable access from north end of town.

Kickapoo Rail Trail, Mt Olive Cemetery, North Urbana

Dark Sky, Views, Trailheads, Inequity, Northern Access

15

Would like to see more vegetation, connection to Main St is problematic. Too much emphasis on Weaver Park, not enough on existing infrastructure. Walmart is a far better de facto trailhead at present.

Kickapoo Rail Trail, US 150/Main, Walmart Vegetation, Connectivity, Existing Bikeways, Trailheads


17

Question #6: What amenities would you like to see added to the Kickapoo Rail Trail? Key Finding: Restrooms, wayfinding, trailheads, signage, drinking fountains, and trees were frequently requested amenities for the KRT. Listed below are the response subjects for Question #6. For the complete list of responses, please see the table below.


18

Question #6 locations referenced:


19

Comment Card Question #6: What amenities would you like to see added to the Kickapoo Rail Trail?

ID Comment Comment Location Comment Subject 1 A trailhead with toilets. Trailheads Restrooms, Trailheads

2 Benches "here and there." I think there were a few near St. Joe (but I can't remember). Just a safe spot to pull-off every now and then.

Kickapoo Rail Trail, St Joseph Benches, Rest Stops

3 Benches and maybe a few garbage cans along the path.

Kickapoo Rail Trail Benches, Trash cans

4 Benches, wayfinding, water fountains, bike racks, and lighting at trailheads. Lighting at intersection crossings.

Trailheads, Intersections Benches, Wayfinding, Drinking Fountains, Bike Parking, Lighting, Trailheads, Crossings

5 Binoculars at dark sky location. Signage. Kickapoo Rail Trail Binoculars, Dark Sky, Signage 6 Easy access via bike. none specified Ease, Bicyclist Access 7 Mile marker. Wayfinding signage. Kickapoo Rail Trail Mile Markers, Wayfinding, Signage

8 Mileage markers, including distance to next milestones along the way (if these don't yet exist).

Kickapoo Rail Trail Mile Markers, Signage, Wayfinding

9 More restaurants, etc. at Urbana's "end" of the trail to serve users coming to Urbana and heading to St. Joe. Bathrooms, parking, bike rentals, etc.

Urbana, Trailheads Restaurants, Restrooms, Parking, Bike Rentals, Trailheads

10 Restrooms, maps, plantings of trees and shrubs (i.e. habitat).

Kickapoo Rail Trail Restrooms, Maps, Trees, Vegetation

11 Restrooms, more signage, bike racks at trailhead ends St Joe and Weaver.

Weaver Park, St Joseph, Trailheads Restrooms, Signage, Bike Parking, Trailheads

12 Restrooms. Landscaping. Trees. none specified Restrooms, Landscaping, Trees 13 Trash cans, benches with shade. Kickapoo Rail Trail Trash Cans, Benches, Shade


20


14

Trees for shade in some places. Rest stops very important - with wayfinding - "you are here" maps. Occasional viewing/observation posts. Historic markers - was a route frequented by Abe Lincoln (at least to Homer) and the Interurban (Fithian still has a station converted into a home/business).

Kickapoo Rail Trail, Fithian Trees, Shade, Rest Stops, Wayfinding, Maps, Observation Posts, Views, Historic Markers, Lincoln, Interurban

15 Trees. Water at both trailheads. Kickapoo Rail Trail, Trailheads Trees, Drinking Fountains, Trailheads

16 Water fountain, pavilion and 911 box and USB charger outlet. Concession permits on main spot. Rental bicycles for revenues.

Kickapoo Rail Trail, Trailheads Drinking Fountains, Pavilion, Emergency Call Box, USB Charger Outlets, Concession Permits, Bike Rentals

17 Wayfinding. none specified Wayfinding

18

Would like to see additional interpretive displays re: History including towns, roadway development, and most importantly (since it's a RAIL trail) railroad stories. Also drinking fountains, restrooms, and bike repair stations.

Kickapoo Rail Trail Interpretive Displays, Historic Markers, Drinking Fountains, Restrooms, Bike Repair Stations


21

Question #7: Please rank each trailhead amenity with a number from 1-10. • 1 = Most important trailhead amenity • 10 = Least important trailhead amenity

Key Finding: Respondents are most interested in seeing restrooms, wayfinding and maps, and drinking fountains at KRT trailheads. They are least interested in seeing bicycle repair stations, pavilions, and public art at KRT trailheads. The following table shows how many people gave a specific ranking to a specific trailhead amenity.

Priority Benches Bicycle Repair Station

Bike Racks Drinking

Fountains Landscaping Lighting Pavilion Public Art Restrooms

Wayfinding and Maps

1 2 1 1 3 0 1 2 1 7 6 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 0 0 5 6 3 2 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 6 1 4 3 1 3 1 2 3 3 0 0 2 5 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 0 1 1 6 4 4 0 2 0 2 1 3 0 1 7 0 2 4 0 3 3 1 3 1 1 8 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 2 0 1 9 0 1 3 1 4 0 4 2 0 1

10 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 7 1 0


22

All rankings were totaled to determine what people want to see at KRT trailheads. Since 1 equals the most important trailhead amenity, lower scores mean a higher priority for respondents.

Rank Trailhead Amenity Sum of all

Respondents Rankings

1 Restrooms 57 2 Wayfinding and Maps 64 3 Drinking Fountains 83 4 Benches 86 5 Bike Racks 104 6 Lighting 104 7 Landscaping 114 8 Bicycle Repair Station 120 9 Pavilion 127

10 Public Art 144

ID Comment Card Question #7: Other responses 1 #1 Priority: Parking 2 All of the above 3 Combine drinking fountain and restrooms 4 Historic markers – lots of history along this route and into Danville 5 Parking 6 Vending machines, if robberies could be prevented. It's difficult to rank these amenities as if I view them ALL as important


23

Section 3: Additional Comments Facebook Event Comments


1

I may not be able to attend, but here is a concern: from Weaver Park to the entrance of the trail is not a problem. It becomes a bit problematic coming back from the trail to Main Street due to traffic turning onto Main from University from both directions. While many riders do well to look all ways before crossing, there is still the potential that a cyclist or pedestrian might cross and get hit due to cars turning fast and much of the time not paying attention to their surroundings. As careful as I am (I was hit by a distracted driver even after being alert....it all happened too fast), I have had many near misses from drivers on their phones rounding the corner while I was already committed in the crosswalk. I really don't see the city putting another stop sign or street light out at that intersection, but I think one of those options would help.

US 150/Main

Turning Vehicles, Crossings, Safety, Intersection Safety, Bicyclists, Pedestrians, Distracted Driving, Stop Signs, Traffic Signals

Large Map Comments


1

I currently use Illinois St to Race St, north to Main St, then east. Maybe I should use Illinois St east to Urbana Ave or Cottage Grove Ave to Main St, but I never go through because there are no signs.

Illinois St, Race St, Main St, Urbana Ave, Cottage Grove Ave Western Access, Wayfinding, Signage

2

Question - Urbana's existing Boneyard Creek Improvement and Beautification Plan takes planned bike path to University Ave at north end. Will Kickapoo Rail Trail be directed to this location? Or come in on Main St? That is at the wrong end to make use of Boneyard beautification.

Boneyard Creek, Kickapoo Rail Trail, University Ave, Main St

Waterways, Beautification, Trail Extension, Western Access

3 Students want/need wayfinding from Campus to KRT University of Illinois, Kickapoo Rail Trail Wayfinding, University of Illinois Access


24

Existing Conditions Map #1 – Study Area – Post-It Comments ID Comment Comment Location Comment Subject

1 Add connection from Industrial Circle to Kickapoo Rail Trail Industrial Cir, Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity, Trail, Southern Access

2 Add connection from Tatman Ct to Pfeffer Rd Tatman Ct, Pfeffer Rd Connectivity, Trail, Southern Access

3 Add sharrows to the country section of Washington Street between Kinch St and High Cross Rd. Washington St Sharrows, Southern Access

4 Add sharrows to the country section of Washington Street between Kinch St and High Cross Rd. Washington St Sharrows, Southern Access

5 Connect from Pfeffer Rd to University [Ave] improving existing gravel path. Pfeffer Rd, University Ave, Kickapoo Rail Trail Southern Access, Trail Surface,

Connectivity 6 Connect KRT to Pfeffer Rd with a trail. Kickapoo Rail Trail, Pfeffer Rd Connectivity, Trail, Western Access

7 Develop trail alongside rail to Carle. Then figure out how to cross Lincoln and keep going west.

Norfolk Southern Railroad, Carle Hospital, Lincoln Ave

Rail-with-Trail, Western Access, Connectivity, Crossings

8 I agree with this solution [of connecting the Kickapoo Rail Trail and] Main St to Pfeffer spur! Main St, Pfeffer Rd Connectivity, Trail, Southern Access

9 Let's get KRT to Riggs! Kickapoo Rail Trail, IL 130, Riggs Beer Company

Connectivity, Destinations, Southern Access

10 Let's get KRT to Riggs! Kickapoo Rail Trail, IL 130, Riggs Beer Company

Connectivity, Destinations, Southern Access

11 Must connect KRT to Aldi at US 150/IL 130 Kickapoo Rail Trail, US 150/IL 130, Aldi Connectivity, Destinations, Grocery Access

12 This part [on Main Street from University Ave to Weaver Park] is scary US 150/Main St, Main St Western Access, Safety, Crossings

13

University from 5 Points east to stoplight is lightly trafficked, would be good for bike paths. This would help give access to AMBUCS Park, Weaver Park, Perkins Park by bike.

University Ave, Five Points, AMBUCS Park, Weaver Park, Perkins Road Park Site

Connectivity, Bikeway Installation, Sidepath, Weaver Park Access, AMBUCS Park Access, Perkins Park Access


25

Existing Conditions Map #2 – Number of Travel Lanes – Post-It Comments ID Comment Comment Location Comment Subject

1 Connect KRT to Aldi at US 150/IL 130 Kickapoo Rail Trail, US 150/IL 130, Aldi Connectivity, Destinations, Grocery Access

2 I think I-74 & High Cross Rd will get an interchange, right? If so, High Cross Rd would be widened [from I-74 to US 150], so ensure to add bike and easy grade.

I-74, IL 130 Interchange, Roadway Widening, Bikeway Installation, Grade

3 Washington St and connectivity thereof is missing from this study. This connection is important. Washington St Connectivity, Southern Access

Existing Conditions Map #3 – Road Edge Marking Types – Post-It Comments


1 Add sharrows on E Main St for now until more work is done. Main St Sharrows, Western Access

2 Bikes May Use Full Lane sign on E Main St. Main St Signage, Western Access Existing Conditions Map #4 – Posted Speed Limits – Post-It Comments


1 A pedestrian leading interval at University Ave & High Cross Rd would facilitate crossing - cars don't expect to see pedestrians and bikes on this road.

IL 130/US 150 Crossings, Safety, Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Pedestrian Signals, Visibility

2 Reduce speed limit on Pfeffer Rd to 25 mph heading north and approaching curve. Pfeffer Rd Speed Limit

Existing Conditions Map #5 – Lane Widths – Post-It Comments


1 Bike path/sidepath connection continuing west on Tatman Ct to Pfeffer Rd. Tatman Ct, Pfeffer Rd Connectivity, Trail, Southern Access

2 Secondary bike path/sidepath connection continuing north from Industrial Circle to KRT. Industrial Cir, Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity, Trail, Southern Access


26

Existing Conditions Map #6 – Existing Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) – Post-It Comments ID Comment Comment Location Comment Subject

1 Is the BLOS correct on High Cross Road between Perkins Rd and US 150? High Cross Rd Bicycle Level of Service

Existing Conditions Map #7 – Refuge Island – Post-It Comments


1 These give confidence to both cyclists and pedestrians (including families). none specified Less Confident Bicyclist Access,

Pedestrians, Families, Crossings 2 Very important when crossing a four-lane street. none specified Crossings, Safety

Existing Conditions Map #8 – Bike Parking – Post-It Comments


1 Auto parking is also important for those without easy access. none specified Parking, Access

2 Auto parking is also important for those without easy access. none specified Parking, Access

Existing Conditions Map #9 – Pedestrian Crashes – Post-It Comments


1 Crashes common along stretches I would normally take to avoid traffic. none specified Safety

2 35 mph stretch on Pfeffer Rd. Pedestrian injury on Pfeffer Rd. Pfeffer Rd Speed Limit, Safety


27

Section 4: Full Comment Summary Locations: Listed below are the locations mentioned in all responses above. For the complete list of responses, please see the tables above.


28

Subjects: Listed below are the subjects mentioned more than once in all responses above. For the complete list of responses, please see the tables above.


29

Section 5: Public Comment Maps


30

APPENDIX BPUBLIC WORKSHOP #2 RESULTS REPORT

Public Meeting #2 Results Report

June 5, 2018

Urbana KRT Study Public Meeting #2 Results

2

Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Section 2: Votes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Section 3: Reasons & Concerns ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Section 4: More Comments & Reactions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Section 5: Outreach .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16


3

Section 1: Introduction Project Background In 2017, the Urbana Park District, Champaign County Forest Preserve District (CCFPD), and the City of Urbana contracted with the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to develop recommendations for connecting Weaver Park and East Urbana to the Kickapoo Rail Trail (KRT). In the Fall of 2017, staff from all four agencies hosted the first public meeting for this plan, seeking ideas on connecting the aforementioned areas.

Public Meeting #2 On Wednesday, May 23, 2018, staff from all four agencies hosted a joint public open house to solicit public input on nine proposed alternatives to connect the Kickapoo Rail Trail to Weaver Park and East Urbana. The meeting was held in the Champaign County Highway Department Conference Room at 1605 E. Main St. in Urbana.

Each attendee was given a comment card to complete. Exhibit boards displaying the results from the first public meeting; network analyses; and the nine alternatives and their opportunities and constraints were set up around the room. Attendees were invited to choose their preferred alternative, as well as provide comments on these exhibit boards.

20 people total submitted input: 14 people in attendance at the workshop, 5 people via the CCRPC website, and 1 person via email. The following presents the results of this input.


4

Section 2: Votes Includes votes for alternatives from comment cards, the CCRPC website, and email. Comment Card Question #1a: What is your preferred alignment? Key Findings: Alternative #4 (Bakers Lane via Norfolk Southern Railroad) was the most requested alternative by the public.

Alternative # Preferred Alternative (PA) Tally 2nd PA Tally 3rd PA Tally 4th PA Tally Weighted Score

Points 1 0.5 0.25 0.1 - 1 0 1 0 1 0.6 2 5 0 0 0 5 3 5 0 1 0 5.25 4 5 3 0 0 6.5 5 0 1 1 0 0.75 6 0 1 0 0 0.5 7 0 3 0 0 1.5 8 1 0 0 0 1 9 1 0 0 0 1

Preferred Alternative Votes Only, Ranked:

Alternative # Alternative Name Votes

2 Main Street Sidepath 5 3 Smith Road via NSRR 5 4 Bakers Lane via NSRR 5 8 Tatman Ct. via High Cross Rd. 1 9 Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR 1 1 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension 0 5 Pfeffer Rd. extended 0 6 Industrial Circle extended 0 7 Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. 0

Weighted Scores Ranked:

Alternative # Alternative Name Weighted Score

4 Bakers Lane via NSRR 6.5 3 Smith Road via NSRR 5.25 2 Main Street Sidepath 5 7 Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. 1.5 8 Tatman Ct. via High Cross Rd. 1 9 Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR 1 5 Pfeffer Rd. extended 0.75 1 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension 0.6 6 Industrial Circle extended 0.5


5


6

Section 3: Reasons & Concerns Includes comments from comment cards, the CCRPC website, and email. Comment Card Question #1b: Please explain why [you chose your preferred alignment]. Note: Comments 2.2, 4.5, 7.2, and 8.1 are highlighted in blue because they are the same comment that apply to multiple alternatives.

Alternative & Comment # Alternative Name Comments

1.1 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension The Main Street bike lane extension should be completed, but it is not to be expected that this will ever see other than experienced and confident users. Hopefully the number of these users will be continuously increasing!

2.1 Main Street Sidepath Does not require crossing the Main St/US 150 intersection. 1/2 of it is already in place. Acquiring the property at the SE corner of Main & US 150 would open up more green space with opportunities.

2.2 Main Street Sidepath If the cost is not higher to a significant degree, I would prefer #4. #2 is a good option if it costs less. Separation from vehicular traffic is needed for pedestrians and families. Having almost no driveway intersections if possible is best.

2.3 Main Street Sidepath Less interaction with car traffic.

2.4 Main Street Sidepath My preference would be a sidepath along Main Street; however, I understand the logistical and financial constraints this alignment brings. With limited resources and faster results, Options #4, 3, and 1 (in order of preference) may be better alternatives.

2.5 Main Street Sidepath Safety and with direct connect[ion] to Downtown Urbana and beyond. Family use. 3.1 Smith Road via NSRR Access to Weaver Park is direct from park to Smith Road.

3.2 Smith Road via NSRR

*Family friendly.* Safe. Attracts tourists. "Off road" connects to Downtown Urbana = $$$. Low stress, interesting. Will pay for itself in the first year it is open. Connectivity to Weaver [Park] very important to be safe for crossing Main St. with slower kids. Should not feel like you have to "run" across street to get there.

3.3 Smith Road via NSRR I have wandered the territory and thought about many alternatives. Extension of the KRT to Smith and then to MTD then across the drainage ditch to Kerr then Broadway would seem to be doable.


7



Less chance for accidents. More attractive trail. Less property involved. Could be a gateway. Participant brought a marked aerial map, proposing Alternative #3 with a sidepath on the west side of Smith Road, and these notes: waiting area, bike stands, and seats at the NE corner of Smith/University, NW corner of Smith/University, and SW corner of Smith/Main.


Make trail on ex[isting] RR ROW to Smith Rd. Use Smith Rd. somehow to connect to [Weaver] Park. It is only 200 feet to deal with Smith, either to buy land from neighbors, or do bike lanes, or sharrows, or sidewalk. Also traffic signal to cross [US] 150 for whole north side neighborhoods to connect. Then connect to Tatman for PO - #6 choice.

4.1 Bakers Lane via NSRR #4 best in long term to utilize park amenities and extend trail and accommodate pedestrians.

4.2 Bakers Lane via NSRR Bakers Lane would be scenic and connect to Washington [Street] bike lanes to Downtown Urbana and then Campus.

4.3 Bakers Lane via NSRR I like the change of direction going south.

4.4 Bakers Lane via NSRR I'd be happy if off-road path from Washington St. thru Weaver Park to KRT. But this does not increase $$$ to Downtown Urbana. But would open up Weaver [Park] to be more "connective" for running & biking when I train for 1/2 marathons.

4.5 Bakers Lane via NSRR If the cost is not higher to a significant degree, I would prefer #4. #2 is a good option if it costs less. Separation from vehicular traffic is needed for pedestrians and families. Having almost no driveway intersections if possible is best.

4.6 Bakers Lane via NSRR Like the connectivity to Weaver Park, elementary school, and possibly Lierman Neighborhood. Seems more pedestrian friendly than some others. Could be an asset to Urbana Park District programs at Brookens.

4.7 Bakers Lane via NSRR

The Northern Southern Railroad to Smith Road (Alternative #4) should be pursued first, with the long-term vision of extending the trail through Champaign and providing linkages to AMBUCS, Leal Park, Crystal Lake Park, and the University Avenue and Main Street business districts along the way.

5.1 Pfeffer Rd. extended #5 seems [to be] the simplest [alternative to Alternative #2]. 6.1 Industrial Circle extended Make trail on ex[isting] RR ROW to Smith Rd. Then connect to Tatman for PO - #6 choice.

7.1 Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. #7 for inexpensive immediate solution by making a short path, good for kids, temporary solution.

7.2 Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. None. But Alternatives #8 and #7 is better since it avoids University/High Cross intersection. Trail should head south [on the] east [side] of Walmart and cross at Tatman Drive.


8


8.1 Tatman Ct. via High Cross Rd. None. But Alternatives #8 and #7 is better since it avoids University/High Cross intersection. Trail should head south [on the] east [side] of Walmart and cross at Tatman Drive.

9.1 Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR Extending the KRT farther west would be the simplest to navigate and most user-friendly option in the long run. It may cost more time/money, but the longer the KRT is and the closer to Downtown Urbana, the more use it will get.

10.1 Other #10 (new proposal): Go to Carle Hospital on tracks.


9

Comment Card Question #2: Do you have any concerns regarding any of the other alternatives, or aspects of the project? Note: Comments 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 7.1, 7.3, and 8.1 are highlighted in blue because they are the same comment that apply to multiple alternatives.

Referenced Alternative & Comment #

Referenced Alternative Name Comments

1.1 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Alternatives #1 and 2 are both good, but Alternative #1 doesn't work for pedestrians.

1.2 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Main Street east of Scotts[wood Drive] – should be rebuilt anyway, and standardized with Main Street west of Scotts[wood Drive] – and use ROAD FUNDS. But if this is not part of proposals, then anything using Main Street is a problem space-wise.

1.3 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Main Street Path is not family-friendly; it is scary; and it does not encourage you to bike to Downtown Urbana. I would like to bike to St. Joe -> then back to Downtown Urbana with children and cyclists who won't bike on roads shared with motorized vehicles.

1.4 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension The Main St. bike lane is simply inadequate for pedestrians and cycling families and less confident cyclists. Vehicles on Main St. travel above the speed limit.

1.5 Main St. Bike Lanes Extension

The problem with Main St. is that the bike lanes are never clean. I’ve seen the street sweeper go down the car lane, but not do a second round to clean the bike lanes. I ride in the car lane. I don’t care who beeps or yells. I’m not getting a flat tire because the street sweeper is instructed to clean the car lane and leave the bike lane filled with gravel, broken glass, etc. The city doesn’t care about the Main St. bike lanes.

2.1 Main Street Sidepath Alternatives #1 and 2 are both good, but Alternative #1 doesn't work for pedestrians.

2.2 Main Street Sidepath Main Street east of Scotts[wood Drive] – should be rebuilt anyway, and standardized with Main Street west of Scotts[wood Drive] – and use ROAD FUNDS. But if this is not part of proposals, then anything using Main Street is a problem space-wise.

2.3 Main Street Sidepath Main Street Path is not family-friendly; it is scary; and it does not encourage you to bike to Downtown Urbana. I would like to bike to St. Joe -> then back to Downtown Urbana with children and cyclists who won't bike on roads shared with motorized vehicles.

2.4 Main Street Sidepath No 3.1 Smith Road via NSRR Traffic crossing at Main Street and University Ave. 4.1 Bakers Lane via NSRR Not now. 5.1 Pfeffer Rd. extended Alternative #7 or 5 are next best alternatives. 6.1 Industrial Circle extended No comments. 7.1 Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. Alternative #7 or 5 are next best alternatives.


10



7.2 Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. I think Alternative #7 is a good temporary solution. Having to get access from landowners worries me. Other concerns are just that any connectivity and KRT be bike & pedestrian friendly – seems like enthusiasm and emphasis is on bikes.

7.3 Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. The value of connectivity to Weaver Park is greatly overstated. I'm more concerned with connectivity to Washington [St.] and Windsor [Rd]. Weaver Park will never be as good a trailhead as is Walmart.

8.1 Tatman Ct. via High Cross Rd. The value of connectivity to Weaver Park is greatly overstated. I'm more concerned with connectivity to Washington [St.] and Windsor [Rd]. Weaver Park will never be as good a trailhead as is Walmart.

9.1 Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR No comments.

10.1 Other A lot of them are great ideas, but depends on development. I hope they are pursued when development happens, but we need a SAFE connection now.

10.2 Other [All other alternatives are] more problematic [then Alternative #3].


11



10.3 Other

A suggested safe connection from Danville to Urbana-Champaign and west to Monticello and Decatur: the east end of Main Street is narrow and with traffic entering, it is suggested that the Forest Preserve activate the rail-bed it owns between Main Street and Dobbins (Dodson) Drive as a rail extension; that the Forest Preserve buy or lease the 400 yards of the one mile of unused yard pigtail decapitated by Smith Road between Dobbins (Dodson) and activate those combined rail segments to a direct rail trail to Smith Road, with some variances for bikes on Smith Road. That would provide access to the Weaver Trail Head and allow access to Urbana on a wider portion of Main Street without having to involve the narrow end of Main Street. It is suggested that the Forest Preserve or interested agency buy or lease a rail trail to the north side of the NS (Norfolk Southern) yards to the MTD headquarters. There is already an informal road there that suggests that possibility. There is not a lot of rail activity in that section of the yards. MTD has adequate parking and the busses carry bikes. This could be starting point or a continuing connection for Kickapoo trail bikers. Across University to AMBUCS Park with a formal crossing being considered by MTD, through the Sanitary Treatment Plan which has been considering same, then to the Urbana Park District which owns Chief Shemauger Park that could facilitate a bridge over the Salt Fork after the confluence of the Boneyard, thence Kerr to Broadway, around or possibly through Busey Woods to Coler, thence south to Fair [Grounds], thence west on Washington (Fairview/Beslin/Washington) to the Washington CN Underpass. [In Champaign] to Market, then north to the abandoned Wabash [RR] corridor, then west on the Wabash corridor that runs north of the Champaign Post Office to a one and half acre of space between Randolph and State that could be a venue for many events whether or not the site will be part of a future detention basin. Then west on Washington to Glenn [Park] and Kaufman Lake. Then on an established rail-trail bikieway to County Center (Fair) Rd., past the Champaign Park District to Kirby [Avenue], then west on Kirby [Avenue] to White Heath which is safer than [Illinois] Route 10. Through White Heath, with potential connection to Clinton, and south to the Monticello Railway Museum on Shady Rest Rd. Or directly down [Illinois Route] 105 to Valentine Park, and south to Monticello on an established Illinois Traction abandonment rail trail to East Central Monticello; to City Square on streets; then west on the City [of Monticello] established Sangamon Bridge Trail. To County Farm Road, which allows access to Allerton Park. Onto an established extension of the bridge trail to Applewood Road where the new Monticello Library and anticipated sporting field has been located. From there on to a "shared" bikeway on Old Rt. 47 to Decatur. Old Rt. 47 is lightly trafficked since I-72 which replaced it takes most of the traffic all the way to Decatur.

10.4 Other I feel the community would welcome the parks being connected. The best solution may take more investigation.


12



10.5 Other

I have been harassed by drivers on the part of Washington that does not have a bike path. Why does this not have at least Sharrows if not a path? This is part of the corridor in your plan. Even with the usual harassment that I can get on Washington, I find it better than trying the E. Main where cars are traveling way to fast around the corner. The path really needs to use the railway into town and have overpasses or underpasses.

10.6 Other Mixing terrain and path size/type and direction would be confusing for new users.


13

Section 4: More Comments & Reactions Ten exhibit boards were available for review at the meeting. Attendees were invited to add comments to these boards via post-it notes. The following table lists these comments by board and reaction (negative, positive, or suggestion).

Board # Board/Alternative Name Reaction Comment

1 Public Workshop #1 Results Suggestion Connect #1 Main. (Agrees that the most desired way to connect KRT to Weaver Park is the Main

Street corridor.)

1 Public Workshop #1 Results Suggestion KRT amenities [that commenter] would like to see, ranked: 1) Signage, 2) Trailheads, 3)

Wayfinding, 4) Trees, 5) Drinking Fountains, 6) Restrooms

1 Public Workshop #1 Results Suggestion

KRT Trailhead amenities [that commenter] would like to see, ranked: 1) Wayfinding and Maps, 2) Bike Racks, 3) Drinking Fountains, 4) Lighting, 5) Restrooms, 6) Benches, 7) Landscaping, 8) Bicycle Repair Station, 9) Pavilion, 10) Public Art

3 Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) Negative East side crosswalk at US 150/IL 130 is high stress, too.

6a Alternative #1: Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Negative Constraint #1: Pedestrians are not accommodated was underlined.

6a Alternative #1: Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Negative Families with children and less confident cyclists will not use the Main St. bike lane. We need a

more inclusive option that also works for pedestrians.

6a Alternative #1: Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Positive Constraint #3 comment: This is not a sidepath, it's the road. That's safer.

6a Alternative #1: Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Positive Yes!

6a Alternative #1: Main St. Bike Lanes Extension Suggestion Only if road is rebuilt and standards on both sides and surface with Main Street west of

Scottswood.

6b Alternative #2: Main Street Sidepath Negative If there is not enough land to fix Main St. itself…then there is not enough land for sidepath either.

East of Scottswood should match west of Scottswood.

6b Alternative #2: Main Street Sidepath Positive Alternative #2

6b Alternative #2: Main Street Sidepath Positive New Opportunity #7 added: Does not require crossing Main Street.

6b Alternative #2: Main Street Sidepath Positive YES!


14


6b Alternative #2: Main Street Sidepath Positive YES!

7a Alternative #3: Smith Road via NSRR Negative Smith Road is a terrible idea!

7a Alternative #3: Smith Road via NSRR Positive A good connection to the north via Smith Rd.

7a Alternative #3: Smith Road via NSRR Positive I think Smith is best. Traffic signal to cross US 150 for north side connections, too. And direct

into Park for trailhead.

7b Alternative #4: Bakers Lane via NSRR Negative No way to cross US 150. No connection to north side neighbors. No trail yet along Weaver Park,

either. Cost more $ to make it complete.

7b Alternative #4: Bakers Lane via NSRR Negative People from north will still use Smith in spite of lane restrictions…but then be forced out of way

south to Main, then back to Bakers. Bicyclists hate going out of way, and they will still use Smith.

7b Alternative #4: Bakers Lane via NSRR Positive Good idea!

7b Alternative #4: Bakers Lane via NSRR Positive Opportunity #2 (Crosses Main Street at Weaver Park, making the availability of proposed primary

trailhead features at Weaver Park obvious to KRT users) comment: Yes

7b Alternative #4: Bakers Lane via NSRR Positive This will be great!

8a Alternative #5: Pfeffer Rd. extended Positive This still has Main St. connections east of Scottswood. Connection into Tatman – P.O. would be

better on Industrial Ct.

8a Alternative #5: Pfeffer Rd. extended Suggestion If this was to be done, then connect into Tatman Ct. there [at intersection of Pfeffer Rd. & Main St.]

8b Alternative #6: Industrial Circle ext’d. Positive Yes! This is the best idea to get access to post office, Walmart, and any future [development]

such as Menards.

8b Alternative #6: Industrial Circle ext’d. Suggestion Drawing of Tatman Court extended west from current terminus to Pfeffer Road, with comment

"would need."

8b Alternative #6: Industrial Circle ext’d. Suggestion This would still have to involve connecting with another plan to get to Park & Downtown. But this

is best add-on. But can wait, as alternative sidewalk on east side of IL 130 is useable.

9a Alternative #7: Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. Negative Downtown to trail would be what? 3 miles out of way??? And miss facilities at Weaver Park. NO.

9a Alternative #7: Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. Positive Like!


15


9a Alternative #7: Pfeffer Rd. & Washington St. Suggestion Good temporary solution, just make a path to connect existing road [at the north end of Pfeffer

Road]. Then do Alternative #4. :)

9b Alternative #8: Tatman Ct. via High Cross Rd. Positive A good secondary access.

9b Alternative #8: Tatman Ct. via High Cross Rd. Positive Yes for connection from Tatman Court to Pfeffer Road, also to get to Walmart with traffic signals.

But still problems getting to Pfeffer either from Main or Washington.

9b Alternative #8: Tatman Ct. via High Cross Rd. Suggestion NO to being on IL 130 – at least use the sidewalk on the right side to change into shared-use path.

10 Alternative #9: Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR Negative

Constraint #3 (Railroad property access west of Scottswood Drive corridor is necessary. This is especially difficult due to an active railroad existing west of Smith Road. This will take a significant amount of time and money, as well as the cooperation of Norfolk Southern Railroad. This includes seeking funding for the preliminary engineering, design, and construction for this potential KRT section.) comment: Lots of time; lots of $ to deal with Norfolk Southern Railroad.

10 Alternative #9: Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR Negative

Constraint #5 (This alternative does not connect to Weaver Park. Since it bypasses Weaver Park, there is no connection to proposed primary trailhead features on the west side of the KRT.) comment: This is a major constraint…and to me, throws this out of contention. Smith Road is better…goes straight to Weaver Park.

10 Alternative #9: Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR Positive Opportunity #4 (Provides a bikeway connection between the existing KRT terminus and

Downtown Urbana via the existing Main Street bike lanes) comment: True

10 Alternative #9: Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR Positive Would be nice.

10 Alternative #9: Art Bartell Rd. via NSRR Suggestion

Smith Road connection is better: connects straight to park/trailhead; avoids active railroad; and it is a shorter path from Beringer Circle to Smith Road, which is cheaper to build than Beringer Circle to Art Bartell Road.


16

Section 5: Outreach Comment Card Question #3: How did you hear about this meeting? Check all that apply. Key Finding: Most people heard about this workshop via email, Facebook, or word of mouth.

Specific “Other” Comments:

• Thru cycling emails, specifically for the Bike Month Celebration happening at Weaver Park right now. • Urbana Park District • WCIA

9

6

43 3

1 10 00

123456789

10

How did you hear about this meeting?

Weaver Park and East Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study … · 2019-10-24 · WEAVER...

Documents

Transcript of Weaver Park and East Urbana Kickapoo Rail Trail Connectivity Study … · 2019-10-24 · WEAVER...